<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_12_1910211</id>
	<title>New Ad-Aware Offers Behavioral Detection</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1255337100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>With the latest release of the popular anti-malware tool Ad-Aware, Lavasoft has added what is being referring to as "Genotype," a <a href="http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007\_4-10371489-12.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-5">heuristic-based behavioral detection engine</a>.  In addition to a new (and what appears to be faster) method of detection and elimination, there are a few incremental updates like the simple/advanced toggle and a potentially always-on "gaming mode," which attempts to do real-time filtering while you are playing games, watching videos, or just browsing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the latest release of the popular anti-malware tool Ad-Aware , Lavasoft has added what is being referring to as " Genotype , " a heuristic-based behavioral detection engine .
In addition to a new ( and what appears to be faster ) method of detection and elimination , there are a few incremental updates like the simple/advanced toggle and a potentially always-on " gaming mode , " which attempts to do real-time filtering while you are playing games , watching videos , or just browsing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the latest release of the popular anti-malware tool Ad-Aware, Lavasoft has added what is being referring to as "Genotype," a heuristic-based behavioral detection engine.
In addition to a new (and what appears to be faster) method of detection and elimination, there are a few incremental updates like the simple/advanced toggle and a potentially always-on "gaming mode," which attempts to do real-time filtering while you are playing games, watching videos, or just browsing.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299</id>
	<title>Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255341840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a trained biologist, I take exception to the failure to analogize properly. A genotype is the genetic description of an organism. This has nothing to do with a system that learns from experience.</p><p>Those who create software: Please, if you are going to use a word from a different field to name or describe your program, try to pick a word that creates some sort of sensible analogy rather than choosing one that sounds cool and is unused. Otherwise, you risk sounding like an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a trained biologist , I take exception to the failure to analogize properly .
A genotype is the genetic description of an organism .
This has nothing to do with a system that learns from experience.Those who create software : Please , if you are going to use a word from a different field to name or describe your program , try to pick a word that creates some sort of sensible analogy rather than choosing one that sounds cool and is unused .
Otherwise , you risk sounding like an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a trained biologist, I take exception to the failure to analogize properly.
A genotype is the genetic description of an organism.
This has nothing to do with a system that learns from experience.Those who create software: Please, if you are going to use a word from a different field to name or describe your program, try to pick a word that creates some sort of sensible analogy rather than choosing one that sounds cool and is unused.
Otherwise, you risk sounding like an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726029</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255349940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And as a trained mathematician, I would like to extend it to all the people who use the word "normal"
to describe anything but a non-trivial group <i>G</i> whose only nontrivial subgroup is <i>G</i> itself.
Normal people don't make stupid mistakes like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And as a trained mathematician , I would like to extend it to all the people who use the word " normal " to describe anything but a non-trivial group G whose only nontrivial subgroup is G itself .
Normal people do n't make stupid mistakes like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as a trained mathematician, I would like to extend it to all the people who use the word "normal"
to describe anything but a non-trivial group G whose only nontrivial subgroup is G itself.
Normal people don't make stupid mistakes like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725379</id>
	<title>Does it really matter though?</title>
	<author>DRAGONWEEZEL</author>
	<datestamp>1255346700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have 1 detection on one software suite, how many do you have on any other suite?</p><p>My gues is N +X where N is the number of suites you try and X is any positive integer &gt;1.</p><p>That's why the solution really is this:  <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1388939&amp;cid=29619053" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1388939&amp;cid=29619053</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have 1 detection on one software suite , how many do you have on any other suite ? My gues is N + X where N is the number of suites you try and X is any positive integer &gt; 1.That 's why the solution really is this : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1388939&amp;cid = 29619053 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have 1 detection on one software suite, how many do you have on any other suite?My gues is N +X where N is the number of suites you try and X is any positive integer &gt;1.That's why the solution really is this:  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1388939&amp;cid=29619053 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724505</id>
	<title>Re:Warning</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1255342680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you not want to continue?<br> <br>[Enable] [Disable]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you not want to continue ?
[ Enable ] [ Disable ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you not want to continue?
[Enable] [Disable]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724741</id>
	<title>On the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255343700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... nobody know's you're a <b>nigger</b></p><p>Nowhameen fshizzle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... nobody know 's you 're a niggerNowhameen fshizzle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... nobody know's you're a niggerNowhameen fshizzle?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725363</id>
	<title>Not what I thought</title>
	<author>abbynormal brain</author>
	<datestamp>1255346640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on the title of the article - I thought the "behavioral detection" might have been based on the Slashdot "Karma Engine". I guess not.</p><p>----<br>Yes, my karma is currently "bad"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and about to get worse.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the title of the article - I thought the " behavioral detection " might have been based on the Slashdot " Karma Engine " .
I guess not.----Yes , my karma is currently " bad " ... and about to get worse .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the title of the article - I thought the "behavioral detection" might have been based on the Slashdot "Karma Engine".
I guess not.----Yes, my karma is currently "bad" ... and about to get worse.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725045</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255345140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get over yourself. All fields do this. Just ask an astronomer what a "metal" is. Then ask a chemist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get over yourself .
All fields do this .
Just ask an astronomer what a " metal " is .
Then ask a chemist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get over yourself.
All fields do this.
Just ask an astronomer what a "metal" is.
Then ask a chemist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724117</id>
	<title>Warning</title>
	<author>Romancer</author>
	<datestamp>1255341060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warning, The page you are about to view contains P0rN and a small malware virus, would you like to continue?</p><p>Options:<br>Yes give me the Virus<br>No Block the P0rN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warning , The page you are about to view contains P0rN and a small malware virus , would you like to continue ? Options : Yes give me the VirusNo Block the P0rN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warning, The page you are about to view contains P0rN and a small malware virus, would you like to continue?Options:Yes give me the VirusNo Block the P0rN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725681</id>
	<title>Re:People still use Ad-Aware?</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1255348140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.superantispyware.com/" title="superantispyware.com">SuperAntiSpyware</a> [superantispyware.com] and <a href="http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam.php" title="malwarebytes.org">Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware</a> [malwarebytes.org] (thanks to the folks in <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/security,1" title="dslreports.com">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/security,1</a> [dslreports.com] for suggesting these) also don't hog your system like Windows' services. Run, scan, and clean on-demand.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Don't forget Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool (W2K SP4 has it too) with mrt.exe command.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SuperAntiSpyware [ superantispyware.com ] and Malwarebytes ' Anti-Malware [ malwarebytes.org ] ( thanks to the folks in http : //www.dslreports.com/forum/security,1 [ dslreports.com ] for suggesting these ) also do n't hog your system like Windows ' services .
Run , scan , and clean on-demand .
: ) Do n't forget Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool ( W2K SP4 has it too ) with mrt.exe command .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SuperAntiSpyware [superantispyware.com] and Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware [malwarebytes.org] (thanks to the folks in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/security,1 [dslreports.com] for suggesting these) also don't hog your system like Windows' services.
Run, scan, and clean on-demand.
:)Don't forget Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool (W2K SP4 has it too) with mrt.exe command.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724921</id>
	<title>Re:People still use Ad-Aware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255344600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen.

Anon 'cuz this would just get modded redundant anyway, but you are *SO* right I had to say so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
Anon 'cuz this would just get modded redundant anyway , but you are * SO * right I had to say so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
Anon 'cuz this would just get modded redundant anyway, but you are *SO* right I had to say so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1255342800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a trained physicist I would like to extend that to include not just software developers but also Sci-Fi writers, politicians, the media, the general public and anyone who incorrectly uses the word "exponentially". In fact, people who use the word exponentially incorrectly are exponentially worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a trained physicist I would like to extend that to include not just software developers but also Sci-Fi writers , politicians , the media , the general public and anyone who incorrectly uses the word " exponentially " .
In fact , people who use the word exponentially incorrectly are exponentially worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a trained physicist I would like to extend that to include not just software developers but also Sci-Fi writers, politicians, the media, the general public and anyone who incorrectly uses the word "exponentially".
In fact, people who use the word exponentially incorrectly are exponentially worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726459</id>
	<title>What's new?</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1255352400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's new about heuristics?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's new about heuristics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's new about heuristics?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724685</id>
	<title>Is it just me...</title>
	<author>XPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1255343460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or have these past few days been really slow for news?</p><p>And on-topic, who uses Ad-Aware? Same applies to Norton.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or have these past few days been really slow for news ? And on-topic , who uses Ad-Aware ?
Same applies to Norton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or have these past few days been really slow for news?And on-topic, who uses Ad-Aware?
Same applies to Norton.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725303</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255346460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It shouldn't be 'genotype', but genetic algorithm (or perhaps a similar thing). This is in fact the same thing (as I recall from highschool biology classes, compared to what such an algorithm does). The anology is in the strings (~DNA strings) used to create new strings (~reproduction) based on some fraction of two (or more?) of the other strings.</p><p>AI: A Modern Approach by Russell &amp; Norvig (see http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/ ) has a pretty good image of it.</p><p>In short, it works like this flowchart: http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/d3f5p9.gif with the concepts I got in biology class (reproduction, mutation, etc).</p><p>That said, I'm not a biologist myself and I do agree that genotype is somewhat silly. I suppose what they thought of would be to use it to refer to the 'genetic' description of a computer virus. That's all I can make of it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should n't be 'genotype ' , but genetic algorithm ( or perhaps a similar thing ) .
This is in fact the same thing ( as I recall from highschool biology classes , compared to what such an algorithm does ) .
The anology is in the strings ( ~ DNA strings ) used to create new strings ( ~ reproduction ) based on some fraction of two ( or more ?
) of the other strings.AI : A Modern Approach by Russell &amp; Norvig ( see http : //aima.cs.berkeley.edu/ ) has a pretty good image of it.In short , it works like this flowchart : http : //www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/d3f5p9.gif with the concepts I got in biology class ( reproduction , mutation , etc ) .That said , I 'm not a biologist myself and I do agree that genotype is somewhat silly .
I suppose what they thought of would be to use it to refer to the 'genetic ' description of a computer virus .
That 's all I can make of it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It shouldn't be 'genotype', but genetic algorithm (or perhaps a similar thing).
This is in fact the same thing (as I recall from highschool biology classes, compared to what such an algorithm does).
The anology is in the strings (~DNA strings) used to create new strings (~reproduction) based on some fraction of two (or more?
) of the other strings.AI: A Modern Approach by Russell &amp; Norvig (see http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/ ) has a pretty good image of it.In short, it works like this flowchart: http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/d3f5p9.gif with the concepts I got in biology class (reproduction, mutation, etc).That said, I'm not a biologist myself and I do agree that genotype is somewhat silly.
I suppose what they thought of would be to use it to refer to the 'genetic' description of a computer virus.
That's all I can make of it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29730437</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255439820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Genotype just sounds cool, for fucks sake. Get off your high horse, and pull that pipette out of your ass hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Genotype just sounds cool , for fucks sake .
Get off your high horse , and pull that pipette out of your ass hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genotype just sounds cool, for fucks sake.
Get off your high horse, and pull that pipette out of your ass hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724529</id>
	<title>In other news ...</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1255342800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason for the mysterious death of many computer users in the last time has been found. It turned out they all had an anti-malware program running which tried to detect and eliminate malware through analyzing its behaviour. Apparently the software detected dangerous behaviour from the computer users and therefore decided to eliminate them in order to protect the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason for the mysterious death of many computer users in the last time has been found .
It turned out they all had an anti-malware program running which tried to detect and eliminate malware through analyzing its behaviour .
Apparently the software detected dangerous behaviour from the computer users and therefore decided to eliminate them in order to protect the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason for the mysterious death of many computer users in the last time has been found.
It turned out they all had an anti-malware program running which tried to detect and eliminate malware through analyzing its behaviour.
Apparently the software detected dangerous behaviour from the computer users and therefore decided to eliminate them in order to protect the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441</id>
	<title>People still use Ad-Aware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to love it back in the day, removed all kinds of spywave, simple gui, updated easy enough, you ran it when you wanted, etc
<br> <br>
These days it keeps half a dozen processes running in the background with more to be opened if you do any kind of scan. I realize having real-time protection is a nice feature, having to go in and auto disable all these is a pain. If you're still getting malware on the go, so to speak, from websites, and aren't using a browser than's got security or at least security add-ons (Firefox + Noscript + ABP + Flashblock) then I could understand the need for it.
<br> <br>
Add in an anti virus software that does the same X number of processes in the background plus Ad-Aware thats way more bogged down software than ever. Ad-Aware used to be simple, clean and sleek, now it's just bloated shovelware (how quickly did they move from Version X to SE, to Version X.1?)
<br> <br> Stick with Spybot, Malwarebytes, HijackThis and a decent backup like Nod32, Avast or AVG, imho.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to love it back in the day , removed all kinds of spywave , simple gui , updated easy enough , you ran it when you wanted , etc These days it keeps half a dozen processes running in the background with more to be opened if you do any kind of scan .
I realize having real-time protection is a nice feature , having to go in and auto disable all these is a pain .
If you 're still getting malware on the go , so to speak , from websites , and are n't using a browser than 's got security or at least security add-ons ( Firefox + Noscript + ABP + Flashblock ) then I could understand the need for it .
Add in an anti virus software that does the same X number of processes in the background plus Ad-Aware thats way more bogged down software than ever .
Ad-Aware used to be simple , clean and sleek , now it 's just bloated shovelware ( how quickly did they move from Version X to SE , to Version X.1 ?
) Stick with Spybot , Malwarebytes , HijackThis and a decent backup like Nod32 , Avast or AVG , imho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to love it back in the day, removed all kinds of spywave, simple gui, updated easy enough, you ran it when you wanted, etc
 
These days it keeps half a dozen processes running in the background with more to be opened if you do any kind of scan.
I realize having real-time protection is a nice feature, having to go in and auto disable all these is a pain.
If you're still getting malware on the go, so to speak, from websites, and aren't using a browser than's got security or at least security add-ons (Firefox + Noscript + ABP + Flashblock) then I could understand the need for it.
Add in an anti virus software that does the same X number of processes in the background plus Ad-Aware thats way more bogged down software than ever.
Ad-Aware used to be simple, clean and sleek, now it's just bloated shovelware (how quickly did they move from Version X to SE, to Version X.1?
)
  Stick with Spybot, Malwarebytes, HijackThis and a decent backup like Nod32, Avast or AVG, imho.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725259</id>
	<title>Bloatware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255346220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like almost all fee-based malware products marketed to home users, Adaware now-a-days is just bloatware crap that seems to cause as many problems as it tries to solve. The performance degradation of its background service is almost worse than what some malware causes. Avoid like the plague.
<br> <br>
I advise all my home user customers to never pay for ANY antivirus/antispyware software. None of it prevents anything anymore and isn't worth spending money on. All it's good for anymore is notifying you after the fact when you get an infection and then most people have to pay to have it cleaned anyway. Install Firefox &amp; set it as the default browser then install AVG/Avast/Spybot/etc (anything as long as its free) to provide infection notifications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like almost all fee-based malware products marketed to home users , Adaware now-a-days is just bloatware crap that seems to cause as many problems as it tries to solve .
The performance degradation of its background service is almost worse than what some malware causes .
Avoid like the plague .
I advise all my home user customers to never pay for ANY antivirus/antispyware software .
None of it prevents anything anymore and is n't worth spending money on .
All it 's good for anymore is notifying you after the fact when you get an infection and then most people have to pay to have it cleaned anyway .
Install Firefox &amp; set it as the default browser then install AVG/Avast/Spybot/etc ( anything as long as its free ) to provide infection notifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like almost all fee-based malware products marketed to home users, Adaware now-a-days is just bloatware crap that seems to cause as many problems as it tries to solve.
The performance degradation of its background service is almost worse than what some malware causes.
Avoid like the plague.
I advise all my home user customers to never pay for ANY antivirus/antispyware software.
None of it prevents anything anymore and isn't worth spending money on.
All it's good for anymore is notifying you after the fact when you get an infection and then most people have to pay to have it cleaned anyway.
Install Firefox &amp; set it as the default browser then install AVG/Avast/Spybot/etc (anything as long as its free) to provide infection notifications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724737</id>
	<title>Ingenious!</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1255343700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wile E. Coyote will definitely succeed this time...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wile E. Coyote will definitely succeed this time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wile E. Coyote will definitely succeed this time...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725423</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255346880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I've told you once, I've told you 10^7 times, stop exaggerating</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 've told you once , I 've told you 10 ^ 7 times , stop exaggerating</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I've told you once, I've told you 10^7 times, stop exaggerating</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724407</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Words get re-used for other purposes all the time, get over it.</p><p>Its especially true in newer fields such as computing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Words get re-used for other purposes all the time , get over it.Its especially true in newer fields such as computing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Words get re-used for other purposes all the time, get over it.Its especially true in newer fields such as computing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725961</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1255349700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous Coward get re-used for other purposes all the time, get over it.</p><p>Its especially true when you spend all your time hanging out at the closest meat market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous Coward get re-used for other purposes all the time , get over it.Its especially true when you spend all your time hanging out at the closest meat market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous Coward get re-used for other purposes all the time, get over it.Its especially true when you spend all your time hanging out at the closest meat market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725861</id>
	<title>Re:People still use Ad-Aware?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255349220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I run Linux. Period. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I run Linux .
Period. ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I run Linux.
Period. ^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724683</id>
	<title>Re:Warning</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1255343460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Yes" option is different if you perform safe hex!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Yes " option is different if you perform safe hex !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Yes" option is different if you perform safe hex!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725729</id>
	<title>everbody now....</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1255348560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What finger am i holding up for that company.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What finger am i holding up for that company.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What finger am i holding up for that company.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724697</id>
	<title>Re:People still use Ad-Aware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255343520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all the background processes now, I keep programs like ad-aware uninstalled. Then when I want to perform a scan I install it, run the scan, and uninstall it again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the background processes now , I keep programs like ad-aware uninstalled .
Then when I want to perform a scan I install it , run the scan , and uninstall it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the background processes now, I keep programs like ad-aware uninstalled.
Then when I want to perform a scan I install it, run the scan, and uninstall it again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725533</id>
	<title>Phenotype is what they want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255347360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Genotype is the genes. (and the age-old signature based detection method)<br>Phenotype is the behaviour. (teh new koolness TM, (R), (C), patent pending)</p><p>Check wikipedia if in doubt.</p><p>And LOL at the windoze lusers always wrangling with malware... Oh boy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Genotype is the genes .
( and the age-old signature based detection method ) Phenotype is the behaviour .
( teh new koolness TM , ( R ) , ( C ) , patent pending ) Check wikipedia if in doubt.And LOL at the windoze lusers always wrangling with malware... Oh boy .
: ) ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genotype is the genes.
(and the age-old signature based detection method)Phenotype is the behaviour.
(teh new koolness TM, (R), (C), patent pending)Check wikipedia if in doubt.And LOL at the windoze lusers always wrangling with malware... Oh boy.
:)))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29727085</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1255356240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a trained physicist I would like to extend that to include not just software developers but also Sci-Fi writers, politicians, the media, the general public and anyone who incorrectly uses the word "exponentially". In fact, people who use the word exponentially incorrectly are exponentially worse.</p></div><p>I hope it gives you some measure of hope that whenever I am about to extrapolate in casual conversation, I make it a point to distinguish between geometric and exponential growth.</p><p>If things will apparently increase at a merely linear rate, I try instead to change the subject to something more interesting.</p><p>Since I am not a trained physicist, suggestions for further conversational precision are welcome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a trained physicist I would like to extend that to include not just software developers but also Sci-Fi writers , politicians , the media , the general public and anyone who incorrectly uses the word " exponentially " .
In fact , people who use the word exponentially incorrectly are exponentially worse.I hope it gives you some measure of hope that whenever I am about to extrapolate in casual conversation , I make it a point to distinguish between geometric and exponential growth.If things will apparently increase at a merely linear rate , I try instead to change the subject to something more interesting.Since I am not a trained physicist , suggestions for further conversational precision are welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a trained physicist I would like to extend that to include not just software developers but also Sci-Fi writers, politicians, the media, the general public and anyone who incorrectly uses the word "exponentially".
In fact, people who use the word exponentially incorrectly are exponentially worse.I hope it gives you some measure of hope that whenever I am about to extrapolate in casual conversation, I make it a point to distinguish between geometric and exponential growth.If things will apparently increase at a merely linear rate, I try instead to change the subject to something more interesting.Since I am not a trained physicist, suggestions for further conversational precision are welcome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724427</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>gnick</author>
	<datestamp>1255342380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype#Genotype\_and\_mathematics" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia:</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Inspired by the biological concept and usefulness of genotypes, computer science employs simulated phenotypes in genetic programming and evolutionary algorithms. Such techniques can help evolve mathematical solutions to certain types of otherwise difficult problems.</p></div><p>I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that once it's on Wikipedia you need to fight it there or give up the ship...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Wikipedia : [ wikipedia.org ] Inspired by the biological concept and usefulness of genotypes , computer science employs simulated phenotypes in genetic programming and evolutionary algorithms .
Such techniques can help evolve mathematical solutions to certain types of otherwise difficult problems.I 'm not saying that you 're wrong , I 'm just saying that once it 's on Wikipedia you need to fight it there or give up the ship.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org] Inspired by the biological concept and usefulness of genotypes, computer science employs simulated phenotypes in genetic programming and evolutionary algorithms.
Such techniques can help evolve mathematical solutions to certain types of otherwise difficult problems.I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that once it's on Wikipedia you need to fight it there or give up the ship...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724575</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255343040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a trained biologist...</p></div><p>I take it that you've never helped two <a href="http://durtbagz.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mullets.jpg" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">mullet-sporting hillbillies</a> [wordpress.com] <a href="http://www.spotsnstripes.com/Images/TopperBeingCollected2.jpg" title="spotsnstripes.com" rel="nofollow">jack off a horse</a> [spotsnstripes.com] and collect the spooge with a <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3083/2383183353\_589d5678ec.jpg" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">44oz. Big-Gulp cup</a> [flickr.com]. You, sir, are <i>no</i> trained biologist!<br> <br>

<b>Good day to you, sir.</b> *Hmmph!*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a trained biologist...I take it that you 've never helped two mullet-sporting hillbillies [ wordpress.com ] jack off a horse [ spotsnstripes.com ] and collect the spooge with a 44oz .
Big-Gulp cup [ flickr.com ] .
You , sir , are no trained biologist !
Good day to you , sir .
* Hmmph ! *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a trained biologist...I take it that you've never helped two mullet-sporting hillbillies [wordpress.com] jack off a horse [spotsnstripes.com] and collect the spooge with a 44oz.
Big-Gulp cup [flickr.com].
You, sir, are no trained biologist!
Good day to you, sir.
*Hmmph!*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724887</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Offtopic: Not Genotype</title>
	<author>FarFromUnique</author>
	<datestamp>1255344480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Phenomenally" sounds so much better, too. It's a wonder anyone uses "exponentially" anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Phenomenally " sounds so much better , too .
It 's a wonder anyone uses " exponentially " anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Phenomenally" sounds so much better, too.
It's a wonder anyone uses "exponentially" anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724159</id>
	<title>Ummmmmm....</title>
	<author>mujadaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1255341240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>/uninstall<br> <br> <i>No, I don't have AdAware</i>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>/uninstall No , I do n't have AdAware.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/uninstall  No, I don't have AdAware...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726059</id>
	<title>Re:People still use Ad-Aware?</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1255350180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, but the simple fact is, is it any good now ? You don't HAVE to start it on boot, just run it if you need it. Or is that too much work ? I still have version 1.06r1 on my XP box (which never really goes on the net), and it runs fine. Oh dear, my definitions are 673 days old, yet I still have no problems<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Maybe because I use linux to browse the net (and everything else). [meta - is this a troll ?]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but the simple fact is , is it any good now ?
You do n't HAVE to start it on boot , just run it if you need it .
Or is that too much work ?
I still have version 1.06r1 on my XP box ( which never really goes on the net ) , and it runs fine .
Oh dear , my definitions are 673 days old , yet I still have no problems ...Maybe because I use linux to browse the net ( and everything else ) .
[ meta - is this a troll ?
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but the simple fact is, is it any good now ?
You don't HAVE to start it on boot, just run it if you need it.
Or is that too much work ?
I still have version 1.06r1 on my XP box (which never really goes on the net), and it runs fine.
Oh dear, my definitions are 673 days old, yet I still have no problems ...Maybe because I use linux to browse the net (and everything else).
[meta - is this a troll ?
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725139</id>
	<title>Phenotype vs. Lamarckian inheritance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255345620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was tempted at first to say Genotype should instead have been named Phenotype, but in the realm of computers and software (as opposed to biological species), Lamarckian inheritance is widespread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was tempted at first to say Genotype should instead have been named Phenotype , but in the realm of computers and software ( as opposed to biological species ) , Lamarckian inheritance is widespread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was tempted at first to say Genotype should instead have been named Phenotype, but in the realm of computers and software (as opposed to biological species), Lamarckian inheritance is widespread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29733799</id>
	<title>I wonder how far this software has come along</title>
	<author>djnforce9</author>
	<datestamp>1255457580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to use Ad-aware Pro way back when the newest version was 6.0 (not sure was the newest one is now). However, I eventually had to get rid of it.

I found that it was very ineffective at actually removing active Malware. Basically what would happen is that because the Malware is already loaded into memory (sometimes even when in safe mode), ad-aware could not terminate the processes that would in turn free up the files to be deleted. So it told me adware was present but could do nothing more.

In addition, Ad-Aware used to have something called "Ad-watch" which provided real-time scanning and could prevent unauthorized registry edits. The problem is that it also prompted you when you tried to install legit software and the WORST case ever is when ad-watch eats up all your CPU because it tries and blocks registry edits that malware continuously makes in an endless loop (i.e. when a mal-ware registry entry is removed/blocked, the malware automatically detects this and re-adds itself).

Also, from what I remember, Ad-Aware did nothing about rogue Active-X controls either (which I know detects when you try and close the the Malware's related processes and then in turn restores it). To summarize, you basically have to kill all processes, active-x controls, and services created by the Malware manually before Ad-Aware and Ad-Watch could do its thing. That stuff should be done "for you".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to use Ad-aware Pro way back when the newest version was 6.0 ( not sure was the newest one is now ) .
However , I eventually had to get rid of it .
I found that it was very ineffective at actually removing active Malware .
Basically what would happen is that because the Malware is already loaded into memory ( sometimes even when in safe mode ) , ad-aware could not terminate the processes that would in turn free up the files to be deleted .
So it told me adware was present but could do nothing more .
In addition , Ad-Aware used to have something called " Ad-watch " which provided real-time scanning and could prevent unauthorized registry edits .
The problem is that it also prompted you when you tried to install legit software and the WORST case ever is when ad-watch eats up all your CPU because it tries and blocks registry edits that malware continuously makes in an endless loop ( i.e .
when a mal-ware registry entry is removed/blocked , the malware automatically detects this and re-adds itself ) .
Also , from what I remember , Ad-Aware did nothing about rogue Active-X controls either ( which I know detects when you try and close the the Malware 's related processes and then in turn restores it ) .
To summarize , you basically have to kill all processes , active-x controls , and services created by the Malware manually before Ad-Aware and Ad-Watch could do its thing .
That stuff should be done " for you " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to use Ad-aware Pro way back when the newest version was 6.0 (not sure was the newest one is now).
However, I eventually had to get rid of it.
I found that it was very ineffective at actually removing active Malware.
Basically what would happen is that because the Malware is already loaded into memory (sometimes even when in safe mode), ad-aware could not terminate the processes that would in turn free up the files to be deleted.
So it told me adware was present but could do nothing more.
In addition, Ad-Aware used to have something called "Ad-watch" which provided real-time scanning and could prevent unauthorized registry edits.
The problem is that it also prompted you when you tried to install legit software and the WORST case ever is when ad-watch eats up all your CPU because it tries and blocks registry edits that malware continuously makes in an endless loop (i.e.
when a mal-ware registry entry is removed/blocked, the malware automatically detects this and re-adds itself).
Also, from what I remember, Ad-Aware did nothing about rogue Active-X controls either (which I know detects when you try and close the the Malware's related processes and then in turn restores it).
To summarize, you basically have to kill all processes, active-x controls, and services created by the Malware manually before Ad-Aware and Ad-Watch could do its thing.
That stuff should be done "for you".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29729415</id>
	<title>Re:Warning</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1255424700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This program has encountered an unexpected error and needs to close. Would you like to send an error report?<br> <br>[Ok] [Cancel]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This program has encountered an unexpected error and needs to close .
Would you like to send an error report ?
[ Ok ] [ Cancel ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This program has encountered an unexpected error and needs to close.
Would you like to send an error report?
[Ok] [Cancel]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724219</id>
	<title>I'm sorry</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1255341480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Malware writers are smart enough to overcome heuristics-based solutions. Just like spammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Malware writers are smart enough to overcome heuristics-based solutions .
Just like spammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malware writers are smart enough to overcome heuristics-based solutions.
Just like spammers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726379</id>
	<title>Re:Warning</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1255351980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure you want to Quit?</p><p>[Definitely Maybe] [Maybe Definitely]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure you want to Quit ?
[ Definitely Maybe ] [ Maybe Definitely ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure you want to Quit?
[Definitely Maybe] [Maybe Definitely]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29734595</id>
	<title>Re:In other news ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255460820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha.  Isn't that the same thing that Dubya's illegal wiretapping did to Americans?  How soon before citizens are "detected" as "dangerous", and eliminated from society in order to protect the remaining citizens?</p><p>Bring on the NorseFire revolution!</p><p>(anonymous tounge firmly in my anonymous cheek!!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha .
Is n't that the same thing that Dubya 's illegal wiretapping did to Americans ?
How soon before citizens are " detected " as " dangerous " , and eliminated from society in order to protect the remaining citizens ? Bring on the NorseFire revolution !
( anonymous tounge firmly in my anonymous cheek ! !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha.
Isn't that the same thing that Dubya's illegal wiretapping did to Americans?
How soon before citizens are "detected" as "dangerous", and eliminated from society in order to protect the remaining citizens?Bring on the NorseFire revolution!
(anonymous tounge firmly in my anonymous cheek!!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29727499</id>
	<title>Yo0 insensitIve clod!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255359540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">[tuxedo.org], FeAr the reaper ANOTHER TROUBLED</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ tuxedo.org ] , FeAr the reaper ANOTHER TROUBLED [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[tuxedo.org], FeAr the reaper ANOTHER TROUBLED [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725821</id>
	<title>Re:People still use Ad-Aware?</title>
	<author>MojoStan</author>
	<datestamp>1255348980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Add in an anti virus software that does the same X number of processes in the background plus Ad-Aware thats way more bogged down software than ever. Ad-Aware used to be simple, clean and sleek, now it's just bloated shovelware (how quickly did they move from Version X to SE, to Version X.1?)
</p><p>
Stick with Spybot, Malwarebytes, HijackThis and a decent backup like Nod32, Avast or AVG, imho.</p></div><p>Some good recommendations (I'd add <a href="http://www.free-av.com/" title="free-av.com">Avira AntiVir Personal</a> [free-av.com] to your list), but I think <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/29/2250228/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Released-Rivals-Mock-It" title="slashdot.org">Microsoft Security Essentials</a> [slashdot.org] (released 2 weeks ago) is now worth considering for free, <b>non-bloated</b> virus/malware protection. The <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/first-look-microsoft-security-essentials-impresses.ars" title="arstechnica.com">initial reviews</a> [arstechnica.com] seem pretty good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Add in an anti virus software that does the same X number of processes in the background plus Ad-Aware thats way more bogged down software than ever .
Ad-Aware used to be simple , clean and sleek , now it 's just bloated shovelware ( how quickly did they move from Version X to SE , to Version X.1 ?
) Stick with Spybot , Malwarebytes , HijackThis and a decent backup like Nod32 , Avast or AVG , imho.Some good recommendations ( I 'd add Avira AntiVir Personal [ free-av.com ] to your list ) , but I think Microsoft Security Essentials [ slashdot.org ] ( released 2 weeks ago ) is now worth considering for free , non-bloated virus/malware protection .
The initial reviews [ arstechnica.com ] seem pretty good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add in an anti virus software that does the same X number of processes in the background plus Ad-Aware thats way more bogged down software than ever.
Ad-Aware used to be simple, clean and sleek, now it's just bloated shovelware (how quickly did they move from Version X to SE, to Version X.1?
)

Stick with Spybot, Malwarebytes, HijackThis and a decent backup like Nod32, Avast or AVG, imho.Some good recommendations (I'd add Avira AntiVir Personal [free-av.com] to your list), but I think Microsoft Security Essentials [slashdot.org] (released 2 weeks ago) is now worth considering for free, non-bloated virus/malware protection.
The initial reviews [arstechnica.com] seem pretty good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29729437</id>
	<title>Re:People still use Ad-Aware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255424880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm hoping Ad-Aware will now determine that it is malware and remove itself.</p><p>I am also highly suspicious of AVG since it encrypts its own log files for "security reasons". Obviously having the user know what AVG is doing to their computer would be a huge security risk.</p><p>Remember, you and your computer will die a horrible death without Personal Anti-Virus-Spyware-Malware-Badware 2010 PRO or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping Ad-Aware will now determine that it is malware and remove itself.I am also highly suspicious of AVG since it encrypts its own log files for " security reasons " .
Obviously having the user know what AVG is doing to their computer would be a huge security risk.Remember , you and your computer will die a horrible death without Personal Anti-Virus-Spyware-Malware-Badware 2010 PRO or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping Ad-Aware will now determine that it is malware and remove itself.I am also highly suspicious of AVG since it encrypts its own log files for "security reasons".
Obviously having the user know what AVG is doing to their computer would be a huge security risk.Remember, you and your computer will die a horrible death without Personal Anti-Virus-Spyware-Malware-Badware 2010 PRO or whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29727085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29729437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29730437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29734595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29729415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1910211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1910211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29727499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1910211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29727085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29730437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1910211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29729415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1910211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29726059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29729437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1910211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1910211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29734595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1910211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29724685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1910211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1910211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1910211.29725729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
