<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_19_1215230</id>
	<title>Mozilla Unblocks Microsoft's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Addon</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1255956300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"<a href="http://slashdot.org/story/09/10/17/2058240/Firefox-Disables-Microsoftn">Mozilla previously blocked</a> the Firefox addons Microsoft included with .NET, citing security concerns.  After talking with Microsoft, they have now <a href="http://shaver.off.net/diary/2009/10/18/update-net-framework-assistant-clickonce-support-unblocked/">unblocked the .NET Framework Assistant</a> addon and are working on a way for enterprise users to unblock the Windows Presentation Foundation addon as well."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " Mozilla previously blocked the Firefox addons Microsoft included with .NET , citing security concerns .
After talking with Microsoft , they have now unblocked the .NET Framework Assistant addon and are working on a way for enterprise users to unblock the Windows Presentation Foundation addon as well .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "Mozilla previously blocked the Firefox addons Microsoft included with .NET, citing security concerns.
After talking with Microsoft, they have now unblocked the .NET Framework Assistant addon and are working on a way for enterprise users to unblock the Windows Presentation Foundation addon as well.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793693</id>
	<title>What should have happend:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255965240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Allowing myself to control Mozilla, not Microsoft)</p><p>1) Microsoft installs plug-ins, people get upset<br>2) Firefox disables these plug-ins by default, alerts user, and enables uninstall for them<br>3) People run Firefox, see new extensions that have been installed without permission, decide for themselves if they should allow<br>4) Firefox disables the ability to add extensions without an uninstall option<br>5) Firefox creates an automated method to check plug-ins that existed at closing and opening, compare them and ask user about all such instances</p><p>Now Microsoft has the ability to screw with your plug-ins all they want (which since they have your system rooted, isn't preventable), but Firefox can at least detect and inform users about such activity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Allowing myself to control Mozilla , not Microsoft ) 1 ) Microsoft installs plug-ins , people get upset2 ) Firefox disables these plug-ins by default , alerts user , and enables uninstall for them3 ) People run Firefox , see new extensions that have been installed without permission , decide for themselves if they should allow4 ) Firefox disables the ability to add extensions without an uninstall option5 ) Firefox creates an automated method to check plug-ins that existed at closing and opening , compare them and ask user about all such instancesNow Microsoft has the ability to screw with your plug-ins all they want ( which since they have your system rooted , is n't preventable ) , but Firefox can at least detect and inform users about such activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Allowing myself to control Mozilla, not Microsoft)1) Microsoft installs plug-ins, people get upset2) Firefox disables these plug-ins by default, alerts user, and enables uninstall for them3) People run Firefox, see new extensions that have been installed without permission, decide for themselves if they should allow4) Firefox disables the ability to add extensions without an uninstall option5) Firefox creates an automated method to check plug-ins that existed at closing and opening, compare them and ask user about all such instancesNow Microsoft has the ability to screw with your plug-ins all they want (which since they have your system rooted, isn't preventable), but Firefox can at least detect and inform users about such activity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792863</id>
	<title>Already?</title>
	<author>lordandmaker</author>
	<datestamp>1255961400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My firefox install has only just (about 20mins ago) popped up and told me it's disabled the add-on and would like to restart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My firefox install has only just ( about 20mins ago ) popped up and told me it 's disabled the add-on and would like to restart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My firefox install has only just (about 20mins ago) popped up and told me it's disabled the add-on and would like to restart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793311</id>
	<title>This stupid MS extension broke my Adblock Plus</title>
	<author>lscotte</author>
	<datestamp>1255963620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While using my (sigh) windows box this AM I found that Adblock Plus was no longer working. Here's the fix: <a href="https://adblockplus.org/blog/the-return-of-net-framework-assistant" title="adblockplus.org" rel="nofollow">https://adblockplus.org/blog/the-return-of-net-framework-assistant</a> [adblockplus.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While using my ( sigh ) windows box this AM I found that Adblock Plus was no longer working .
Here 's the fix : https : //adblockplus.org/blog/the-return-of-net-framework-assistant [ adblockplus.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While using my (sigh) windows box this AM I found that Adblock Plus was no longer working.
Here's the fix: https://adblockplus.org/blog/the-return-of-net-framework-assistant [adblockplus.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794905</id>
	<title>Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1255970580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How exactly do you propose to stop a process from doing so when it is running outside the scope of firefox? Whatever files Firefox updates to indicate an extension has been installed can also be modified by an outside process. Want to make the file digitally signed? Well, Firefox has to get the signing key from somewhere, but then the other app could just go and get it from the same place.</p></div><p>I have described how to implement this on Windows <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1408445&amp;cid=29788419" title="slashdot.org">here</a> [slashdot.org]. It's not entirely foolproof, but so far as I can see, short of patching the Firefox binary directly, there's no way around it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly do you propose to stop a process from doing so when it is running outside the scope of firefox ?
Whatever files Firefox updates to indicate an extension has been installed can also be modified by an outside process .
Want to make the file digitally signed ?
Well , Firefox has to get the signing key from somewhere , but then the other app could just go and get it from the same place.I have described how to implement this on Windows here [ slashdot.org ] .
It 's not entirely foolproof , but so far as I can see , short of patching the Firefox binary directly , there 's no way around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly do you propose to stop a process from doing so when it is running outside the scope of firefox?
Whatever files Firefox updates to indicate an extension has been installed can also be modified by an outside process.
Want to make the file digitally signed?
Well, Firefox has to get the signing key from somewhere, but then the other app could just go and get it from the same place.I have described how to implement this on Windows here [slashdot.org].
It's not entirely foolproof, but so far as I can see, short of patching the Firefox binary directly, there's no way around it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794191</id>
	<title>Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1255967280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would Microsoft submit its extension to Mozilla and follow the standard operating procedures as far as the dot net thingie is concerned? The user base and use cases for Mozilla/Firefox has always been, you get extensions from one authorized source.</p></div><p>Extensions, yes. Plug-ins, no.</p><p>The Mozilla Team made a technical distinction between extensions and plug-ins for a reason. Extensions are, for the most part, centrally managed, while plug-ins are intended to be externally managed. The point of a plug-in is that it is installed and uninstalled by an external application (ie. not Firefox).</p><p>This is useful functionality, however it would be nice if Firefox would warn the user when it detects a new plug-in that wasn't there the last time Firefox was run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Microsoft submit its extension to Mozilla and follow the standard operating procedures as far as the dot net thingie is concerned ?
The user base and use cases for Mozilla/Firefox has always been , you get extensions from one authorized source.Extensions , yes .
Plug-ins , no.The Mozilla Team made a technical distinction between extensions and plug-ins for a reason .
Extensions are , for the most part , centrally managed , while plug-ins are intended to be externally managed .
The point of a plug-in is that it is installed and uninstalled by an external application ( ie .
not Firefox ) .This is useful functionality , however it would be nice if Firefox would warn the user when it detects a new plug-in that was n't there the last time Firefox was run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Microsoft submit its extension to Mozilla and follow the standard operating procedures as far as the dot net thingie is concerned?
The user base and use cases for Mozilla/Firefox has always been, you get extensions from one authorized source.Extensions, yes.
Plug-ins, no.The Mozilla Team made a technical distinction between extensions and plug-ins for a reason.
Extensions are, for the most part, centrally managed, while plug-ins are intended to be externally managed.
The point of a plug-in is that it is installed and uninstalled by an external application (ie.
not Firefox).This is useful functionality, however it would be nice if Firefox would warn the user when it detects a new plug-in that wasn't there the last time Firefox was run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795259</id>
	<title>Re:sweet christ on a crispix!</title>
	<author>Steeltoe</author>
	<datestamp>1255972020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of us are trying to get real work done. Having virus outbreaks or having to reconfigure everything in the OS isn't really a choice (been there, done that).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of us are trying to get real work done .
Having virus outbreaks or having to reconfigure everything in the OS is n't really a choice ( been there , done that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of us are trying to get real work done.
Having virus outbreaks or having to reconfigure everything in the OS isn't really a choice (been there, done that).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795171</id>
	<title>Re:sweet christ on a crispix!</title>
	<author>RobDude</author>
	<datestamp>1255971720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know - I think there is something to be said for trying to evoke change before jumping ship.</p><p>"Don't like the fact that a teacher at your kid's elementary school is a convicted sex offender?  Don't talk about it at the town meeting and try to get her fired....just move to another school!"</p><p>"Don't like your countries policy on gun control laws....don't argue for why your viewpoint is better and vote in people who agree with your views....just move to another country!"</p><p>When it comes to OSes, the options are pretty slim and/or come with a hefty cost.  Most people are running some version Windows.  The mostly realistic alternatives include Linux and OS X.  Linux, for many people, require hardware changes, advanced technical skill, and is largely incompatible with the software you could buy on the shelf at your local Best Buy/Walmart/whatever.  OS X requires a Mac computer with an intel processor.  I've heard of people hacking around that requirement, but again, advanced technical knowledge is required and you still have to buy the OS and you are instantly removing any chance of getting technical help for your product.</p><p>So, for most people who have a particular complaint with their current OS...biatching about it until it gets fixed is easier than switching to another OS.  And, the other OS is going to have plenty of fresh things to biatch about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know - I think there is something to be said for trying to evoke change before jumping ship .
" Do n't like the fact that a teacher at your kid 's elementary school is a convicted sex offender ?
Do n't talk about it at the town meeting and try to get her fired....just move to another school !
" " Do n't like your countries policy on gun control laws....do n't argue for why your viewpoint is better and vote in people who agree with your views....just move to another country !
" When it comes to OSes , the options are pretty slim and/or come with a hefty cost .
Most people are running some version Windows .
The mostly realistic alternatives include Linux and OS X. Linux , for many people , require hardware changes , advanced technical skill , and is largely incompatible with the software you could buy on the shelf at your local Best Buy/Walmart/whatever .
OS X requires a Mac computer with an intel processor .
I 've heard of people hacking around that requirement , but again , advanced technical knowledge is required and you still have to buy the OS and you are instantly removing any chance of getting technical help for your product.So , for most people who have a particular complaint with their current OS...biatching about it until it gets fixed is easier than switching to another OS .
And , the other OS is going to have plenty of fresh things to biatch about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know - I think there is something to be said for trying to evoke change before jumping ship.
"Don't like the fact that a teacher at your kid's elementary school is a convicted sex offender?
Don't talk about it at the town meeting and try to get her fired....just move to another school!
""Don't like your countries policy on gun control laws....don't argue for why your viewpoint is better and vote in people who agree with your views....just move to another country!
"When it comes to OSes, the options are pretty slim and/or come with a hefty cost.
Most people are running some version Windows.
The mostly realistic alternatives include Linux and OS X.  Linux, for many people, require hardware changes, advanced technical skill, and is largely incompatible with the software you could buy on the shelf at your local Best Buy/Walmart/whatever.
OS X requires a Mac computer with an intel processor.
I've heard of people hacking around that requirement, but again, advanced technical knowledge is required and you still have to buy the OS and you are instantly removing any chance of getting technical help for your product.So, for most people who have a particular complaint with their current OS...biatching about it until it gets fixed is easier than switching to another OS.
And, the other OS is going to have plenty of fresh things to biatch about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793531</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1255964640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's ongoing discussion on how the issue is that people can drop something in the folder and it will be included when the program is run. The issue is that there is no opt-in requirement, so MS has done the same thing that other programs have done in the past.</p><p>Thankfully, this time something was done about it, without MS simply removing it in an update as of yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's ongoing discussion on how the issue is that people can drop something in the folder and it will be included when the program is run .
The issue is that there is no opt-in requirement , so MS has done the same thing that other programs have done in the past.Thankfully , this time something was done about it , without MS simply removing it in an update as of yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's ongoing discussion on how the issue is that people can drop something in the folder and it will be included when the program is run.
The issue is that there is no opt-in requirement, so MS has done the same thing that other programs have done in the past.Thankfully, this time something was done about it, without MS simply removing it in an update as of yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794663</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>c</author>
	<datestamp>1255969440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Mozilla should block the plugin simply on the grounds that a user can't<br>&gt; uninstall it from within the approved Mozilla add-ons panel.</p><p>That's not a bad rule for a personal desktop, but there are certain occasions where plugins are installed from outside Mozilla, and hence Mozilla shouldn't have a means to uninstall them (i.e. Ubuntu Firefox changes are installed via the package manager, not Mozilla, or plugins installed site-wide by a system admin).</p><p>The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin "can you be disabled?" Having that mechanism implies that it's okay for a plugin to say "no", and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.</p><p>I think it'd be better if they were a little more proactive and just ignored <i>any</i> plugin that doesn't have a disable option. And Mozilla itself should be keeping track of which plugins the user disabled/enabled rather than trust the plugin. It also would be entirely reasonable to have some kind of "disabled until user explicitly enables" rule for any plugin that wasn't downloaded and installed through the browser itself.</p><p>Then, I think, it would be more than fair to treat a plugin which violates those rules as active malware.</p><p>c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Mozilla should block the plugin simply on the grounds that a user ca n't &gt; uninstall it from within the approved Mozilla add-ons panel.That 's not a bad rule for a personal desktop , but there are certain occasions where plugins are installed from outside Mozilla , and hence Mozilla should n't have a means to uninstall them ( i.e .
Ubuntu Firefox changes are installed via the package manager , not Mozilla , or plugins installed site-wide by a system admin ) .The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin " can you be disabled ?
" Having that mechanism implies that it 's okay for a plugin to say " no " , and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.I think it 'd be better if they were a little more proactive and just ignored any plugin that does n't have a disable option .
And Mozilla itself should be keeping track of which plugins the user disabled/enabled rather than trust the plugin .
It also would be entirely reasonable to have some kind of " disabled until user explicitly enables " rule for any plugin that was n't downloaded and installed through the browser itself.Then , I think , it would be more than fair to treat a plugin which violates those rules as active malware.c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Mozilla should block the plugin simply on the grounds that a user can't&gt; uninstall it from within the approved Mozilla add-ons panel.That's not a bad rule for a personal desktop, but there are certain occasions where plugins are installed from outside Mozilla, and hence Mozilla shouldn't have a means to uninstall them (i.e.
Ubuntu Firefox changes are installed via the package manager, not Mozilla, or plugins installed site-wide by a system admin).The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin "can you be disabled?
" Having that mechanism implies that it's okay for a plugin to say "no", and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.I think it'd be better if they were a little more proactive and just ignored any plugin that doesn't have a disable option.
And Mozilla itself should be keeping track of which plugins the user disabled/enabled rather than trust the plugin.
It also would be entirely reasonable to have some kind of "disabled until user explicitly enables" rule for any plugin that wasn't downloaded and installed through the browser itself.Then, I think, it would be more than fair to treat a plugin which violates those rules as active malware.c.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792655</id>
	<title>Question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will they allow users to uninstall it normally at any point?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will they allow users to uninstall it normally at any point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will they allow users to uninstall it normally at any point?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29801141</id>
	<title>At least it can now be uninstalled</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1255951740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least the thing now has an uninstall button, but I think Mozilla fist did the right thing, and now the questionable thing.  Oh well, at least it brought this rubbish on the radar again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the thing now has an uninstall button , but I think Mozilla fist did the right thing , and now the questionable thing .
Oh well , at least it brought this rubbish on the radar again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the thing now has an uninstall button, but I think Mozilla fist did the right thing, and now the questionable thing.
Oh well, at least it brought this rubbish on the radar again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794225</id>
	<title>What sites use .NET?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255967400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am confused. What sites use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET under Mozilla's Web browsers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am confused .
What sites use .NET under Mozilla 's Web browsers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am confused.
What sites use .NET under Mozilla's Web browsers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792937</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>xigxag</author>
	<datestamp>1255961880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on.  As anyone who's following this story is aware, Mozilla has an "approved" method of <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Adding\_Extensions\_using\_the\_Windows\_Registry" title="mozilla.org">installing plugins without using the add-ons panel</a> [mozilla.org].  So pick your bone with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on .
As anyone who 's following this story is aware , Mozilla has an " approved " method of installing plugins without using the add-ons panel [ mozilla.org ] .
So pick your bone with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on.
As anyone who's following this story is aware, Mozilla has an "approved" method of installing plugins without using the add-ons panel [mozilla.org].
So pick your bone with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794201</id>
	<title>Portable Firefox Affected?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255967340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm running a version of FF from portableapps.com.  I installed it to a USB stick a few days ago and as of right now I don't have the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET assistant installed.<br> <br>

Maybe the solution to this garbage is to move away from firefox.com downloads until they understand that we don't want automatic installs of useless software?<br> <br>

Also, why is everyone so keen on Mono lately?  I don't need<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET in my Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm running a version of FF from portableapps.com .
I installed it to a USB stick a few days ago and as of right now I do n't have the .NET assistant installed .
Maybe the solution to this garbage is to move away from firefox.com downloads until they understand that we do n't want automatic installs of useless software ?
Also , why is everyone so keen on Mono lately ?
I do n't need .NET in my Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm running a version of FF from portableapps.com.
I installed it to a USB stick a few days ago and as of right now I don't have the .NET assistant installed.
Maybe the solution to this garbage is to move away from firefox.com downloads until they understand that we don't want automatic installs of useless software?
Also, why is everyone so keen on Mono lately?
I don't need .NET in my Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797465</id>
	<title>Users Must Have Say Which Plugins are Installed!</title>
	<author>BrendaEM</author>
	<datestamp>1255980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, this is bullshit--encrypt the plugin folder and be done with it.<br>Or, has Mozilla sold out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , this is bullshit--encrypt the plugin folder and be done with it.Or , has Mozilla sold out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, this is bullshit--encrypt the plugin folder and be done with it.Or, has Mozilla sold out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794923</id>
	<title>Keep banned</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1255970640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep banned, please. Or at least, enable the "remove this ugly thing" option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep banned , please .
Or at least , enable the " remove this ugly thing " option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep banned, please.
Or at least, enable the "remove this ugly thing" option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792681</id>
	<title>In related news</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1255960260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enterprise users are working on removing those f##ked up plugins completely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprise users are working on removing those f # # ked up plugins completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprise users are working on removing those f##ked up plugins completely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793543</id>
	<title>Next: skype.</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1255964700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The skype plugin is buggy and causes crashes and weird behviour on sites. Ik kan be disabled by normal pluging behaviour however.</p><p>skype funcions ok without this plugin.</p><p>Will it be the next plugin to be blocked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The skype plugin is buggy and causes crashes and weird behviour on sites .
Ik kan be disabled by normal pluging behaviour however.skype funcions ok without this plugin.Will it be the next plugin to be blocked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The skype plugin is buggy and causes crashes and weird behviour on sites.
Ik kan be disabled by normal pluging behaviour however.skype funcions ok without this plugin.Will it be the next plugin to be blocked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</id>
	<title>Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255960680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla should block the plugin simply on the grounds that a user can't uninstall it from within the approved Mozilla add-ons panel.  That should be the case for any plugin that doesn't play by the rules, no matter who it's from or what its use is.</p><p>If I can't delete it, it's malware. Oh, wait, I *can* delete it, if I google for some crazy instructions that involve registry editing? Isn't that how I delete malware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla should block the plugin simply on the grounds that a user ca n't uninstall it from within the approved Mozilla add-ons panel .
That should be the case for any plugin that does n't play by the rules , no matter who it 's from or what its use is.If I ca n't delete it , it 's malware .
Oh , wait , I * can * delete it , if I google for some crazy instructions that involve registry editing ?
Is n't that how I delete malware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla should block the plugin simply on the grounds that a user can't uninstall it from within the approved Mozilla add-ons panel.
That should be the case for any plugin that doesn't play by the rules, no matter who it's from or what its use is.If I can't delete it, it's malware.
Oh, wait, I *can* delete it, if I google for some crazy instructions that involve registry editing?
Isn't that how I delete malware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796423</id>
	<title>Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if someone wants to write their own extension, firefox will tell them "fuck you, you are trying to install it not from mozilla.org!". You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about.</p><p>Yes, individual users should be able to disable ANY plugin, but that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. If you can't disable a plugin, that's the fault of Firefox,  not the plugin. If you think plugins need some central overlord source, then you are fucked in the head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if someone wants to write their own extension , firefox will tell them " fuck you , you are trying to install it not from mozilla.org ! " .
You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about.Yes , individual users should be able to disable ANY plugin , but that has nothing to do with what you are talking about .
If you ca n't disable a plugin , that 's the fault of Firefox , not the plugin .
If you think plugins need some central overlord source , then you are fucked in the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if someone wants to write their own extension, firefox will tell them "fuck you, you are trying to install it not from mozilla.org!".
You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about.Yes, individual users should be able to disable ANY plugin, but that has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
If you can't disable a plugin, that's the fault of Firefox,  not the plugin.
If you think plugins need some central overlord source, then you are fucked in the head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795309</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255972200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; If I can't delete it, it's malware.</p><p>It's a component of your OS. Whether it's crucial to you is an entirely different discussion - if you want your OS to be as bare as possible, Windows is not for you. MS has decided that it is needed on every system so they can make certain assumptions on system usage and updates. Would you like to be able to delete, say, your kernel executable? Is that malware too?</p></div><p>This is a firefox plugin. Clearly it's not on the machines of people who don't have firefox. Clearly it's NOT a part of the OS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If I ca n't delete it , it 's malware.It 's a component of your OS .
Whether it 's crucial to you is an entirely different discussion - if you want your OS to be as bare as possible , Windows is not for you .
MS has decided that it is needed on every system so they can make certain assumptions on system usage and updates .
Would you like to be able to delete , say , your kernel executable ?
Is that malware too ? This is a firefox plugin .
Clearly it 's not on the machines of people who do n't have firefox .
Clearly it 's NOT a part of the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If I can't delete it, it's malware.It's a component of your OS.
Whether it's crucial to you is an entirely different discussion - if you want your OS to be as bare as possible, Windows is not for you.
MS has decided that it is needed on every system so they can make certain assumptions on system usage and updates.
Would you like to be able to delete, say, your kernel executable?
Is that malware too?This is a firefox plugin.
Clearly it's not on the machines of people who don't have firefox.
Clearly it's NOT a part of the OS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794537</id>
	<title>Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1255968840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have some problems with your post, namely how you keep using the term "extension" without clarifying whether you mean Extensions or Addons (which include Extensions <b>and</b> Plugins).</p><p>Plugins have <b>always</b> been managed by external programs, since back in the early Netscape days.  Mozilla's plugin manager won't install a plugin for you, just tell you where to go to download it.  And yes, there is a common directory for plugins.</p><p>To be honest, I'm not sure if there is for extensions or if the installer that installs the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant extension just installs it for every user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have some problems with your post , namely how you keep using the term " extension " without clarifying whether you mean Extensions or Addons ( which include Extensions and Plugins ) .Plugins have always been managed by external programs , since back in the early Netscape days .
Mozilla 's plugin manager wo n't install a plugin for you , just tell you where to go to download it .
And yes , there is a common directory for plugins.To be honest , I 'm not sure if there is for extensions or if the installer that installs the .NET Framework Assistant extension just installs it for every user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have some problems with your post, namely how you keep using the term "extension" without clarifying whether you mean Extensions or Addons (which include Extensions and Plugins).Plugins have always been managed by external programs, since back in the early Netscape days.
Mozilla's plugin manager won't install a plugin for you, just tell you where to go to download it.
And yes, there is a common directory for plugins.To be honest, I'm not sure if there is for extensions or if the installer that installs the .NET Framework Assistant extension just installs it for every user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797735</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1255981620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I kind of like to Disable this plugin, instead of uninstalling it.</p><p>If you uninstall it; Microsoft will just re-install it with a later "update".<br>If you disable it, Microsoft can update it - it remains DISABLED, where it belongs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I kind of like to Disable this plugin , instead of uninstalling it.If you uninstall it ; Microsoft will just re-install it with a later " update " .If you disable it , Microsoft can update it - it remains DISABLED , where it belongs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I kind of like to Disable this plugin, instead of uninstalling it.If you uninstall it; Microsoft will just re-install it with a later "update".If you disable it, Microsoft can update it - it remains DISABLED, where it belongs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792855</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine if the situation were reversed</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1255961340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You are probably the only person on slashdot NOT running linux. What rage? Microsoft can do what it wants with it's POS OS. In fact, it's perfectly legally entitled to. Enjoy your tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world .
      You are probably the only person on slashdot NOT running linux .
What rage ?
Microsoft can do what it wants with it 's POS OS .
In fact , it 's perfectly legally entitled to .
Enjoy your tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world.
      You are probably the only person on slashdot NOT running linux.
What rage?
Microsoft can do what it wants with it's POS OS.
In fact, it's perfectly legally entitled to.
Enjoy your tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794157</id>
	<title>Re:Why is everyone targeting MS on here?</title>
	<author>TypoNAM</author>
	<datestamp>1255967160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply enter the address 'about:config' and then do a search for blocklist.</p><p>There, you'll see a setting called 'extensions.blocklist.enabled'. Set it to False if you don't want Mozilla to decide what plugins/add-ons you shouldn't use. Restart Firefox after making changes to take effect.</p><p>Sure it isn't obvious for majority of users, but then again on Windows it isn't obvious what registry entries to hack in order resolve issues either. Firefox does have its own (evil?) registry too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply enter the address 'about : config ' and then do a search for blocklist.There , you 'll see a setting called 'extensions.blocklist.enabled' .
Set it to False if you do n't want Mozilla to decide what plugins/add-ons you should n't use .
Restart Firefox after making changes to take effect.Sure it is n't obvious for majority of users , but then again on Windows it is n't obvious what registry entries to hack in order resolve issues either .
Firefox does have its own ( evil ?
) registry too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply enter the address 'about:config' and then do a search for blocklist.There, you'll see a setting called 'extensions.blocklist.enabled'.
Set it to False if you don't want Mozilla to decide what plugins/add-ons you shouldn't use.
Restart Firefox after making changes to take effect.Sure it isn't obvious for majority of users, but then again on Windows it isn't obvious what registry entries to hack in order resolve issues either.
Firefox does have its own (evil?
) registry too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793277</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine if the situation were reversed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255963440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Microsoft were to "block" Firefox from running due a security vulnerability</p></div><p>If Mozilla started installing Firefox onto my machine in a security update for Thunderbird (and prevented its uninstall), I'd welcome such a block, no matter how good Firefox is.  I don't care if<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Assistant will pick up my dry cleaning; I want it perma-blocked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft were to " block " Firefox from running due a security vulnerabilityIf Mozilla started installing Firefox onto my machine in a security update for Thunderbird ( and prevented its uninstall ) , I 'd welcome such a block , no matter how good Firefox is .
I do n't care if .NET Assistant will pick up my dry cleaning ; I want it perma-blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft were to "block" Firefox from running due a security vulnerabilityIf Mozilla started installing Firefox onto my machine in a security update for Thunderbird (and prevented its uninstall), I'd welcome such a block, no matter how good Firefox is.
I don't care if .NET Assistant will pick up my dry cleaning; I want it perma-blocked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792653</id>
	<title>Microsoft's updated advisory</title>
	<author>lseltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1255960080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms09-054.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">MS09-054</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>FAQ for HTML Component Handling Vulnerability - CVE-2009-2529</p><p> <b>If I use Firefox, which Internet Explorer update do I need to<br>install?</b><br>If a computer system is configured for Automatic Update, the<br>correct update will be downloaded and made available for installation depending<br>on the Automatic Update configuration. In the event that a computer system is<br>not configured for Automatic Update, users should verify which version of the<br>Windows operating system and Internet Explorer is on their system and download<br>the appropriate update.</p><p> <b>If I install this security update, do I need to disable the Windows<br>Presentation Foundation Plug-in in Firefox to be protected from this<br>vulnerability?</b><br>No. Customers who have installed the security updates<br>associated with this security bulletin are protected from this<br>vulnerability.</p><p> <b>If I have not yet applied this security update, how do I disable the<br>Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in in Firefox?</b><br>If you have not yet<br>applied this update, you can disable the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in<br>in Firefox to block this vulnerability. To do this, launch the Firefox browser,<br>select the <b>Tools</b> pull-down menu, and then click <b>Add-ons</b>. Select<br>the <b>Plugins</b> icon at the top of the Add-ons window. In the list of<br>Plugins, select <b>Windows Presentation Foundation 3.5.30729.1</b> and click<br><b>Disable</b>.</p><p> <b>If I uninstall the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant extension, does it disable or<br>remove the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in?</b><br>If the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET<br>Framework Assistant extension is uninstalled it does not disable or remove the<br>Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in. The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant and<br>Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in are controlled through different screens<br>in the Firefox Add-ons management window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS09-054 [ microsoft.com ] FAQ for HTML Component Handling Vulnerability - CVE-2009-2529 If I use Firefox , which Internet Explorer update do I need toinstall ? If a computer system is configured for Automatic Update , thecorrect update will be downloaded and made available for installation dependingon the Automatic Update configuration .
In the event that a computer system isnot configured for Automatic Update , users should verify which version of theWindows operating system and Internet Explorer is on their system and downloadthe appropriate update .
If I install this security update , do I need to disable the WindowsPresentation Foundation Plug-in in Firefox to be protected from thisvulnerability ? No .
Customers who have installed the security updatesassociated with this security bulletin are protected from thisvulnerability .
If I have not yet applied this security update , how do I disable theWindows Presentation Foundation plug-in in Firefox ? If you have not yetapplied this update , you can disable the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-inin Firefox to block this vulnerability .
To do this , launch the Firefox browser,select the Tools pull-down menu , and then click Add-ons .
Selectthe Plugins icon at the top of the Add-ons window .
In the list ofPlugins , select Windows Presentation Foundation 3.5.30729.1 and clickDisable .
If I uninstall the .NET Framework Assistant extension , does it disable orremove the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in ? If the .NETFramework Assistant extension is uninstalled it does not disable or remove theWindows Presentation Foundation plug-in .
The .NET Framework Assistant andWindows Presentation Foundation plug-in are controlled through different screensin the Firefox Add-ons management window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS09-054 [microsoft.com]FAQ for HTML Component Handling Vulnerability - CVE-2009-2529 If I use Firefox, which Internet Explorer update do I need toinstall?If a computer system is configured for Automatic Update, thecorrect update will be downloaded and made available for installation dependingon the Automatic Update configuration.
In the event that a computer system isnot configured for Automatic Update, users should verify which version of theWindows operating system and Internet Explorer is on their system and downloadthe appropriate update.
If I install this security update, do I need to disable the WindowsPresentation Foundation Plug-in in Firefox to be protected from thisvulnerability?No.
Customers who have installed the security updatesassociated with this security bulletin are protected from thisvulnerability.
If I have not yet applied this security update, how do I disable theWindows Presentation Foundation plug-in in Firefox?If you have not yetapplied this update, you can disable the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-inin Firefox to block this vulnerability.
To do this, launch the Firefox browser,select the Tools pull-down menu, and then click Add-ons.
Selectthe Plugins icon at the top of the Add-ons window.
In the list ofPlugins, select Windows Presentation Foundation 3.5.30729.1 and clickDisable.
If I uninstall the .NET Framework Assistant extension, does it disable orremove the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in?If the .NETFramework Assistant extension is uninstalled it does not disable or remove theWindows Presentation Foundation plug-in.
The .NET Framework Assistant andWindows Presentation Foundation plug-in are controlled through different screensin the Firefox Add-ons management window.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796175</id>
	<title>moving on</title>
	<author>saiha</author>
	<datestamp>1255975800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I guess we should now be recommending Chrome to our non-security minded relatives? Or if not that, what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess we should now be recommending Chrome to our non-security minded relatives ?
Or if not that , what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess we should now be recommending Chrome to our non-security minded relatives?
Or if not that, what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796675</id>
	<title>I KNEW IT...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1255977540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much did M$ pay them to reinitialize their malware pusher....I wonder</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much did M $ pay them to reinitialize their malware pusher....I wonder</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much did M$ pay them to reinitialize their malware pusher....I wonder</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792911</id>
	<title>spo86e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255961700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>support GNAA, fanatic known people playing can the political mess How is tHe GNAA but now they're Fact: *BSD IS A a sad world. At it will be among</htmltext>
<tokenext>support GNAA , fanatic known people playing can the political mess How is tHe GNAA but now they 're Fact : * BSD IS A a sad world .
At it will be among</tokentext>
<sentencetext>support GNAA, fanatic known people playing can the political mess How is tHe GNAA but now they're Fact: *BSD IS A a sad world.
At it will be among</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792957</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>BarMonger</author>
	<datestamp>1255961940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can uninstall my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net plug-in from within the standard FF add-ons panel just fine.<br>I don't know about the WPF one, I don't have that installed at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can uninstall my .Net plug-in from within the standard FF add-ons panel just fine.I do n't know about the WPF one , I do n't have that installed at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can uninstall my .Net plug-in from within the standard FF add-ons panel just fine.I don't know about the WPF one, I don't have that installed at work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983</id>
	<title>Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1255962060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would Microsoft submit its extension to Mozilla and follow the standard operating procedures as far as the dot net thingie is concerned? The user base and use cases for Mozilla/Firefox has always been, you get extensions from one authorized source. That is mozilla.org. If Microsoft wants an enabler they should just submit it to mozilla.org. Installing it in stealth mode is not expected from mozilla user base.<p>

Further, why is Mozilla.org is allowing a mode where any Tom Dick or Harry can drop in a bunch of files in the install directory and suddenly all the users get the extension on by default? Since it is in the instal dir, individual users cant even disable them or uninstall them. The existence of such a mode itself is a big security hole.
If IE has a hole and allows a drive by download of a file into Firefox install dir, boom, you get a vulnerability in Firefox. Already there are reports that installing an HP printer gives and unwanted, unasked for and unpermitted extension added to Firefox. Now every software you install is going to want to add a tool bar or an extension to Firefox.</p><p>

I wish Firefox will just disallow such a way of installing extensions. The cardinal rule, as for as Firefox is concerned, is that the users rule. They control their browser, they decide which extensions are allowed, which scripts are allowed to run, which user agent string is sent out, whether or not to allow java, applet, or javascript or flash or silverlight or whatever. For corporate deployment, the Mozilla team might allow a script based instal on all machines in a corporate network using proper authentication procedures, like Corportate IT dept has local sysadmin privilege, so they come in and install an extension, and even disable its uninstall option, but that is all done outside the browser using the standard corporate deployment procedures. Allowing anyone to dump cruft in a particular folder and suddenly everybody gets the cruft is totally against the expectations of the standard mozilla firefox user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Microsoft submit its extension to Mozilla and follow the standard operating procedures as far as the dot net thingie is concerned ?
The user base and use cases for Mozilla/Firefox has always been , you get extensions from one authorized source .
That is mozilla.org .
If Microsoft wants an enabler they should just submit it to mozilla.org .
Installing it in stealth mode is not expected from mozilla user base .
Further , why is Mozilla.org is allowing a mode where any Tom Dick or Harry can drop in a bunch of files in the install directory and suddenly all the users get the extension on by default ?
Since it is in the instal dir , individual users cant even disable them or uninstall them .
The existence of such a mode itself is a big security hole .
If IE has a hole and allows a drive by download of a file into Firefox install dir , boom , you get a vulnerability in Firefox .
Already there are reports that installing an HP printer gives and unwanted , unasked for and unpermitted extension added to Firefox .
Now every software you install is going to want to add a tool bar or an extension to Firefox .
I wish Firefox will just disallow such a way of installing extensions .
The cardinal rule , as for as Firefox is concerned , is that the users rule .
They control their browser , they decide which extensions are allowed , which scripts are allowed to run , which user agent string is sent out , whether or not to allow java , applet , or javascript or flash or silverlight or whatever .
For corporate deployment , the Mozilla team might allow a script based instal on all machines in a corporate network using proper authentication procedures , like Corportate IT dept has local sysadmin privilege , so they come in and install an extension , and even disable its uninstall option , but that is all done outside the browser using the standard corporate deployment procedures .
Allowing anyone to dump cruft in a particular folder and suddenly everybody gets the cruft is totally against the expectations of the standard mozilla firefox user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Microsoft submit its extension to Mozilla and follow the standard operating procedures as far as the dot net thingie is concerned?
The user base and use cases for Mozilla/Firefox has always been, you get extensions from one authorized source.
That is mozilla.org.
If Microsoft wants an enabler they should just submit it to mozilla.org.
Installing it in stealth mode is not expected from mozilla user base.
Further, why is Mozilla.org is allowing a mode where any Tom Dick or Harry can drop in a bunch of files in the install directory and suddenly all the users get the extension on by default?
Since it is in the instal dir, individual users cant even disable them or uninstall them.
The existence of such a mode itself is a big security hole.
If IE has a hole and allows a drive by download of a file into Firefox install dir, boom, you get a vulnerability in Firefox.
Already there are reports that installing an HP printer gives and unwanted, unasked for and unpermitted extension added to Firefox.
Now every software you install is going to want to add a tool bar or an extension to Firefox.
I wish Firefox will just disallow such a way of installing extensions.
The cardinal rule, as for as Firefox is concerned, is that the users rule.
They control their browser, they decide which extensions are allowed, which scripts are allowed to run, which user agent string is sent out, whether or not to allow java, applet, or javascript or flash or silverlight or whatever.
For corporate deployment, the Mozilla team might allow a script based instal on all machines in a corporate network using proper authentication procedures, like Corportate IT dept has local sysadmin privilege, so they come in and install an extension, and even disable its uninstall option, but that is all done outside the browser using the standard corporate deployment procedures.
Allowing anyone to dump cruft in a particular folder and suddenly everybody gets the cruft is totally against the expectations of the standard mozilla firefox user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794489</id>
	<title>Re:Mike Shaver</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255968600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Didn't <a href="http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Shaver" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Mike Shaver</a> [slashdot.org] spend hours yesterday defending FF's stance in the original article?</p> </div><p>"Mike Shaver"...? More like fucking "Scrotum Shaver", am I right guys??? Back me up on this one guys!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Mike Shaver [ slashdot.org ] spend hours yesterday defending FF 's stance in the original article ?
" Mike Shaver " ... ?
More like fucking " Scrotum Shaver " , am I right guys ? ? ?
Back me up on this one guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Mike Shaver [slashdot.org] spend hours yesterday defending FF's stance in the original article?
"Mike Shaver"...?
More like fucking "Scrotum Shaver", am I right guys???
Back me up on this one guys!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797793</id>
	<title>Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>FrankieBaby1986</author>
	<datestamp>1255981860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>isn't this the kind of thing app armour does? I don't personally use it, but i thought there were filesystem permissions to allow deny certain users or processes from accessing and modifying files as well. Oh wait. This is windows we're talking about. <br> <br> There is also, of course, the possibility of windows update running as root and getting to put files anywhere it wants anyway. But at least this would be obvious misbehavior. Perhaps MS needs to rethink application security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't this the kind of thing app armour does ?
I do n't personally use it , but i thought there were filesystem permissions to allow deny certain users or processes from accessing and modifying files as well .
Oh wait .
This is windows we 're talking about .
There is also , of course , the possibility of windows update running as root and getting to put files anywhere it wants anyway .
But at least this would be obvious misbehavior .
Perhaps MS needs to rethink application security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't this the kind of thing app armour does?
I don't personally use it, but i thought there were filesystem permissions to allow deny certain users or processes from accessing and modifying files as well.
Oh wait.
This is windows we're talking about.
There is also, of course, the possibility of windows update running as root and getting to put files anywhere it wants anyway.
But at least this would be obvious misbehavior.
Perhaps MS needs to rethink application security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796161</id>
	<title>MS's strategy...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1255975740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's replace HTML with proprietary WPF stuff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... while dragging our feet on HTML standards..</p><p>What a bunch of tools..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's replace HTML with proprietary WPF stuff ... while dragging our feet on HTML standards..What a bunch of tools. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's replace HTML with proprietary WPF stuff ... while dragging our feet on HTML standards..What a bunch of tools..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795051</id>
	<title>Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1255971240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realise that a number of other apps do exactly the same thing, don't you? On my work PC (that I'm sat at right now) I see plugins installed for Java, Quicktime, Adobe Reader, iTunes, etc, none of which I remember explicitly choosing to install, none of which came from Mozilla's add-ons site (because they're plugins, not add-ons!)</p><p><i>The cardinal rule, as for as Firefox is concerned, is that the users rule.</i></p><p>The fact that Mozilla has remotely disabled a plugin (the WPF one) on my browser without asking my permission or giving me a simple way to re-enable it would seem to contradict this statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realise that a number of other apps do exactly the same thing , do n't you ?
On my work PC ( that I 'm sat at right now ) I see plugins installed for Java , Quicktime , Adobe Reader , iTunes , etc , none of which I remember explicitly choosing to install , none of which came from Mozilla 's add-ons site ( because they 're plugins , not add-ons !
) The cardinal rule , as for as Firefox is concerned , is that the users rule.The fact that Mozilla has remotely disabled a plugin ( the WPF one ) on my browser without asking my permission or giving me a simple way to re-enable it would seem to contradict this statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realise that a number of other apps do exactly the same thing, don't you?
On my work PC (that I'm sat at right now) I see plugins installed for Java, Quicktime, Adobe Reader, iTunes, etc, none of which I remember explicitly choosing to install, none of which came from Mozilla's add-ons site (because they're plugins, not add-ons!
)The cardinal rule, as for as Firefox is concerned, is that the users rule.The fact that Mozilla has remotely disabled a plugin (the WPF one) on my browser without asking my permission or giving me a simple way to re-enable it would seem to contradict this statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796297</id>
	<title>ClusterFoxed! Hour #5 Reinstalling</title>
	<author>scorpivs</author>
	<datestamp>1255976220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a small cluster (10 Windows machines) in my 3-room apartment, nearly all of whom are multi-boot - even ME can be *enjoyed*.  Guests and visitors are welcome to login, check email, view apps, game, watch cable, shop... whatever.  I catch immeasurable *7734* from innumerable doubters for inestimable reasons, not the least of which would be EM irradiation and massive power requirements -- but I know my PC farm, and I feel obligated to give<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. the low-down on the low-down:
<br> <br>
A)  They're computers, and they're connected.  They've experienced issues all along, so I was actually looking forward to this so-called "fix";
<br>
2)  Multi-booting exposes all kinds of issues, from small to the complete opposite of small, in which case Windo7s makes no secret it is in many ways *WVII,* a narcissistic second version of Windows: V; and
<br> <br>
first of all, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' does not change my need to reinstall and adapt 3-4 OSes, 32 and 64-bit configurations, drivers, applications and settings, all on 10 machines, copy and wipe mass storage drives<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...yet not perceive recent developments as a problem?
<br> <br>
"I don't care who started it. Knock it off."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a small cluster ( 10 Windows machines ) in my 3-room apartment , nearly all of whom are multi-boot - even ME can be * enjoyed * .
Guests and visitors are welcome to login , check email , view apps , game , watch cable , shop... whatever. I catch immeasurable * 7734 * from innumerable doubters for inestimable reasons , not the least of which would be EM irradiation and massive power requirements -- but I know my PC farm , and I feel obligated to give / .
the low-down on the low-down : A ) They 're computers , and they 're connected .
They 've experienced issues all along , so I was actually looking forward to this so-called " fix " ; 2 ) Multi-booting exposes all kinds of issues , from small to the complete opposite of small , in which case Windo7s makes no secret it is in many ways * WVII , * a narcissistic second version of Windows : V ; and first of all , 'if it ai n't broke , do n't fix it ' does not change my need to reinstall and adapt 3-4 OSes , 32 and 64-bit configurations , drivers , applications and settings , all on 10 machines , copy and wipe mass storage drives ...yet not perceive recent developments as a problem ?
" I do n't care who started it .
Knock it off .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a small cluster (10 Windows machines) in my 3-room apartment, nearly all of whom are multi-boot - even ME can be *enjoyed*.
Guests and visitors are welcome to login, check email, view apps, game, watch cable, shop... whatever.  I catch immeasurable *7734* from innumerable doubters for inestimable reasons, not the least of which would be EM irradiation and massive power requirements -- but I know my PC farm, and I feel obligated to give /.
the low-down on the low-down:
 
A)  They're computers, and they're connected.
They've experienced issues all along, so I was actually looking forward to this so-called "fix";

2)  Multi-booting exposes all kinds of issues, from small to the complete opposite of small, in which case Windo7s makes no secret it is in many ways *WVII,* a narcissistic second version of Windows: V; and
 
first of all, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' does not change my need to reinstall and adapt 3-4 OSes, 32 and 64-bit configurations, drivers, applications and settings, all on 10 machines, copy and wipe mass storage drives ...yet not perceive recent developments as a problem?
"I don't care who started it.
Knock it off.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792867</id>
	<title>Why is that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255961400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why? Is anyone using it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why ?
Is anyone using it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why?
Is anyone using it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29801853</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>Kalriath</author>
	<datestamp>1255955640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin "can you be disabled?" Having that mechanism implies that it's okay for a plugin to say "no", and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.</p></div><p>No they don't.  Plugins cannot be disabled if they were added via the Windows Registry (e.g. by a Group Policy or installer)  rather than by placing them in a specific location.  Blame Mozilla's sloppy coding there, not Microsoft's shitty practice.  Microsoft also released an update months ago that restored the correct disable/uninstall functionality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin " can you be disabled ?
" Having that mechanism implies that it 's okay for a plugin to say " no " , and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.No they do n't .
Plugins can not be disabled if they were added via the Windows Registry ( e.g .
by a Group Policy or installer ) rather than by placing them in a specific location .
Blame Mozilla 's sloppy coding there , not Microsoft 's shitty practice .
Microsoft also released an update months ago that restored the correct disable/uninstall functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin "can you be disabled?
" Having that mechanism implies that it's okay for a plugin to say "no", and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.No they don't.
Plugins cannot be disabled if they were added via the Windows Registry (e.g.
by a Group Policy or installer)  rather than by placing them in a specific location.
Blame Mozilla's sloppy coding there, not Microsoft's shitty practice.
Microsoft also released an update months ago that restored the correct disable/uninstall functionality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794023</id>
	<title>Re:Question is...</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1255966560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/~Deathlizard/journal/238961" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/~Deathlizard/journal/238961</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //slashdot.org/ ~ Deathlizard/journal/238961 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://slashdot.org/~Deathlizard/journal/238961 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793663</id>
	<title>A little Opera would be nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255965180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the fat lady doesn't sing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the fat lady does n't sing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the fat lady doesn't sing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793619</id>
	<title>Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>LordKronos</author>
	<datestamp>1255965000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How exactly do you propose to stop a process from doing so when it is running outside the scope of firefox? Whatever files Firefox updates to indicate an extension has been installed can also be modified by an outside process. Want to make the file digitally signed? Well, Firefox has to get the signing key from somewhere, but then the other app could just go and get it from the same place. Want to move stuff like this off the local system and have it stored in some network repository...well, no, almost nobody is going to want this, but even if they did it wouldn't matter since the other app could just contact the repository pretending to be firefox.</p><p>You see, you run into the same problem you run into with any other sort of malware. The only way to stop it is to have a process loaded beforehand at a higher privilege level than it. That's what virus scanners do, but I don't think it's the sort of thing firefox should be doing (otherwise, why shouldn't every single application have it's own monitoring process to handle this sort of thing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly do you propose to stop a process from doing so when it is running outside the scope of firefox ?
Whatever files Firefox updates to indicate an extension has been installed can also be modified by an outside process .
Want to make the file digitally signed ?
Well , Firefox has to get the signing key from somewhere , but then the other app could just go and get it from the same place .
Want to move stuff like this off the local system and have it stored in some network repository...well , no , almost nobody is going to want this , but even if they did it would n't matter since the other app could just contact the repository pretending to be firefox.You see , you run into the same problem you run into with any other sort of malware .
The only way to stop it is to have a process loaded beforehand at a higher privilege level than it .
That 's what virus scanners do , but I do n't think it 's the sort of thing firefox should be doing ( otherwise , why should n't every single application have it 's own monitoring process to handle this sort of thing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly do you propose to stop a process from doing so when it is running outside the scope of firefox?
Whatever files Firefox updates to indicate an extension has been installed can also be modified by an outside process.
Want to make the file digitally signed?
Well, Firefox has to get the signing key from somewhere, but then the other app could just go and get it from the same place.
Want to move stuff like this off the local system and have it stored in some network repository...well, no, almost nobody is going to want this, but even if they did it wouldn't matter since the other app could just contact the repository pretending to be firefox.You see, you run into the same problem you run into with any other sort of malware.
The only way to stop it is to have a process loaded beforehand at a higher privilege level than it.
That's what virus scanners do, but I don't think it's the sort of thing firefox should be doing (otherwise, why shouldn't every single application have it's own monitoring process to handle this sort of thing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792933</id>
	<title>Please, let the sitiation be reversed!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255961820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the situation was reversed? You mean if Microsoft blocked some obscure add-on or application that nobody knew about and was installed as a plug-in to Internet Explorer without my knowledge or approval? This isn't Firefox blocking IE or Windows Media Player, this is Firefox blocking something that most people have no idea exists, don't use, have no reason to care about, and never asked to have installed in the first place.</p><p>I wish Firefox would block more things like this. In fact I wish IE would block things like this. Every time I install or update Acrobat Reader I have to go through and physically remove the plugin components from the install to keep it from opening PDFs in my browser. When I check my Windows box at work and look at what's been installed in Firefox (and IE, and Windows Explorer, and...) I *always* find something new that I didn't ask to have installed, that sneaked in from some other package or program. I want an option in the Addins page in Firefox that lets me say "remove this now, and don't let it get installed again, ever."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the situation was reversed ?
You mean if Microsoft blocked some obscure add-on or application that nobody knew about and was installed as a plug-in to Internet Explorer without my knowledge or approval ?
This is n't Firefox blocking IE or Windows Media Player , this is Firefox blocking something that most people have no idea exists , do n't use , have no reason to care about , and never asked to have installed in the first place.I wish Firefox would block more things like this .
In fact I wish IE would block things like this .
Every time I install or update Acrobat Reader I have to go through and physically remove the plugin components from the install to keep it from opening PDFs in my browser .
When I check my Windows box at work and look at what 's been installed in Firefox ( and IE , and Windows Explorer , and... ) I * always * find something new that I did n't ask to have installed , that sneaked in from some other package or program .
I want an option in the Addins page in Firefox that lets me say " remove this now , and do n't let it get installed again , ever .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the situation was reversed?
You mean if Microsoft blocked some obscure add-on or application that nobody knew about and was installed as a plug-in to Internet Explorer without my knowledge or approval?
This isn't Firefox blocking IE or Windows Media Player, this is Firefox blocking something that most people have no idea exists, don't use, have no reason to care about, and never asked to have installed in the first place.I wish Firefox would block more things like this.
In fact I wish IE would block things like this.
Every time I install or update Acrobat Reader I have to go through and physically remove the plugin components from the install to keep it from opening PDFs in my browser.
When I check my Windows box at work and look at what's been installed in Firefox (and IE, and Windows Explorer, and...) I *always* find something new that I didn't ask to have installed, that sneaked in from some other package or program.
I want an option in the Addins page in Firefox that lets me say "remove this now, and don't let it get installed again, ever.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794777</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>bloobloo</author>
	<datestamp>1255969920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because it's confusing to the end user. What is the difference between a plugin and an add-on? Unless you know, they just seem like synonyms for something that gets added to the browser to perform a new task.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because it 's confusing to the end user .
What is the difference between a plugin and an add-on ?
Unless you know , they just seem like synonyms for something that gets added to the browser to perform a new task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because it's confusing to the end user.
What is the difference between a plugin and an add-on?
Unless you know, they just seem like synonyms for something that gets added to the browser to perform a new task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793391</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine if the situation were reversed</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1255963980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft contacted the Mozilla folks first and the OKed said blocking?</p><p>I'd certainly hope people wouldn't be angry in that situation, but as you point out reason is hard to come by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft contacted the Mozilla folks first and the OKed said blocking ? I 'd certainly hope people would n't be angry in that situation , but as you point out reason is hard to come by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft contacted the Mozilla folks first and the OKed said blocking?I'd certainly hope people wouldn't be angry in that situation, but as you point out reason is hard to come by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29800459</id>
	<title>Mozilla Team is in Bed With M$</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255948320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Firefox browser went to hell in a handbasket the first time they collaborated with M$. M$ will draw the suckers like Novell and Mozilla into their web of deceit to destroy them.  M$ has effectively ruined Firefox.  Besides, free software such as <a href="http://www.lynxbrowser.com/" title="lynxbrowser.com" rel="nofollow">Lynx</a> [lynxbrowser.com] will always be free from M$ dominance as the M$ addicts can't use text based interfaces.   Lynx is also faster and far more secure than any GUI based web browser out there.</p><p>--<br>Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.<br>Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Firefox browser went to hell in a handbasket the first time they collaborated with M $ .
M $ will draw the suckers like Novell and Mozilla into their web of deceit to destroy them .
M $ has effectively ruined Firefox .
Besides , free software such as Lynx [ lynxbrowser.com ] will always be free from M $ dominance as the M $ addicts ca n't use text based interfaces .
Lynx is also faster and far more secure than any GUI based web browser out there.--Friends do n't help friends install M $ junk.Friends do assist M $ addicted friends in committing suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Firefox browser went to hell in a handbasket the first time they collaborated with M$.
M$ will draw the suckers like Novell and Mozilla into their web of deceit to destroy them.
M$ has effectively ruined Firefox.
Besides, free software such as Lynx [lynxbrowser.com] will always be free from M$ dominance as the M$ addicts can't use text based interfaces.
Lynx is also faster and far more secure than any GUI based web browser out there.--Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793369</id>
	<title>we've been here millions of years?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255963860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&amp; managed to FUDge up our pristine (gift from the creators? very possibly not a 'fluke' at all?) environment to a likely beyond salvage state, in less than 300 years. remarkable, no? the lights continue to come up all over now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&amp; managed to FUDge up our pristine ( gift from the creators ?
very possibly not a 'fluke ' at all ?
) environment to a likely beyond salvage state , in less than 300 years .
remarkable , no ?
the lights continue to come up all over now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&amp; managed to FUDge up our pristine (gift from the creators?
very possibly not a 'fluke' at all?
) environment to a likely beyond salvage state, in less than 300 years.
remarkable, no?
the lights continue to come up all over now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796075</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1255975320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plugins are add-ons in the Mozilla universe.  The term "add-on" is used by Mozilla to mean extensions, themes, and plugins.  Saying "plugin" instead is merely being more specific as to what type of add-on is being discussed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plugins are add-ons in the Mozilla universe .
The term " add-on " is used by Mozilla to mean extensions , themes , and plugins .
Saying " plugin " instead is merely being more specific as to what type of add-on is being discussed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plugins are add-ons in the Mozilla universe.
The term "add-on" is used by Mozilla to mean extensions, themes, and plugins.
Saying "plugin" instead is merely being more specific as to what type of add-on is being discussed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29819641</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine if the situation were reversed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>kindergarden</p></div></blockquote><p>Kindergarten is grade for small children. Kindergarden is a child porn series. How do I know? Because I am one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>kindergardenKindergarten is grade for small children .
Kindergarden is a child porn series .
How do I know ?
Because I am one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kindergardenKindergarten is grade for small children.
Kindergarden is a child porn series.
How do I know?
Because I am one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793847</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's updated advisory</title>
	<author>ThePhilips</author>
	<datestamp>1255965900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  <b>If I install this security update, do I need to disable the Windows
Presentation Foundation Plug-in in Firefox to be protected from this
vulnerability?</b> <br>
No. Customers who have installed the security updates
associated with this security bulletin are protected from this
vulnerability.</p> </div><p> Uhm... "Protected from this vulnerability"?? What the hell?

</p><p> Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I install this security update , do I need to disable the Windows Presentation Foundation Plug-in in Firefox to be protected from this vulnerability ?
No. Customers who have installed the security updates associated with this security bulletin are protected from this vulnerability .
Uhm... " Protected from this vulnerability " ? ?
What the hell ?
Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  If I install this security update, do I need to disable the Windows
Presentation Foundation Plug-in in Firefox to be protected from this
vulnerability?
No. Customers who have installed the security updates
associated with this security bulletin are protected from this
vulnerability.
Uhm... "Protected from this vulnerability"??
What the hell?
Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796979</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1255978620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue people have with these plug-ins is that they install silently without your knowledge. You could argue that someone installing Quicktime might expect to get a browser plug-in to play Quicktime video*, but when installing a security update to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET or WPF you don't expect to have an entire new language (and attack vector) added to your browser.</p><p>* it would be nice if it asked though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue people have with these plug-ins is that they install silently without your knowledge .
You could argue that someone installing Quicktime might expect to get a browser plug-in to play Quicktime video * , but when installing a security update to .NET or WPF you do n't expect to have an entire new language ( and attack vector ) added to your browser .
* it would be nice if it asked though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue people have with these plug-ins is that they install silently without your knowledge.
You could argue that someone installing Quicktime might expect to get a browser plug-in to play Quicktime video*, but when installing a security update to .NET or WPF you don't expect to have an entire new language (and attack vector) added to your browser.
* it would be nice if it asked though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794055</id>
	<title>img</title>
	<author>cybunk</author>
	<datestamp>1255966740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in picture :
<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/4018220375\_38422cdfb7.jpg" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/4018220375\_38422cdfb7.jpg</a> [flickr.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>in picture : http : //farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/4018220375 \ _38422cdfb7.jpg [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in picture :
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/4018220375\_38422cdfb7.jpg [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792839</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>Jimmy\_Slimmy</author>
	<datestamp>1255961280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent says it all.</p><p>Just because Mozilla caves, do not shut up. Make MicroSloth play by the rules.</p><p>Please: Post how to make Microsloth get out of my Firefox.</p><p>Mod parent up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent says it all.Just because Mozilla caves , do not shut up .
Make MicroSloth play by the rules.Please : Post how to make Microsloth get out of my Firefox.Mod parent up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent says it all.Just because Mozilla caves, do not shut up.
Make MicroSloth play by the rules.Please: Post how to make Microsloth get out of my Firefox.Mod parent up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793343</id>
	<title>Mike Shaver</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1255963800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't <a href="http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Shaver" title="slashdot.org">Mike Shaver</a> [slashdot.org] spend hours yesterday defending FF's stance in the original article?  Now they've backtracked from blocking an already patched vulnerability, but he's still sleeping!  We require your insight!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Mike Shaver [ slashdot.org ] spend hours yesterday defending FF 's stance in the original article ?
Now they 've backtracked from blocking an already patched vulnerability , but he 's still sleeping !
We require your insight !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Mike Shaver [slashdot.org] spend hours yesterday defending FF's stance in the original article?
Now they've backtracked from blocking an already patched vulnerability, but he's still sleeping!
We require your insight!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793637</id>
	<title>Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>blue\_goddess</author>
	<datestamp>1255965060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] but that is all done outside the browser using the standard corporate deployment procedures. Allowing anyone to dump cruft in a particular folder [...]</p></div><p>"corporate deployment procedures outside the browser" AFAIK \_do\_ involve dropping something somewhere and (optionally) messing with some sort of config, in this case the registry</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] but that is all done outside the browser using the standard corporate deployment procedures .
Allowing anyone to dump cruft in a particular folder [ ... ] " corporate deployment procedures outside the browser " AFAIK \ _do \ _ involve dropping something somewhere and ( optionally ) messing with some sort of config , in this case the registry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] but that is all done outside the browser using the standard corporate deployment procedures.
Allowing anyone to dump cruft in a particular folder [...]"corporate deployment procedures outside the browser" AFAIK \_do\_ involve dropping something somewhere and (optionally) messing with some sort of config, in this case the registry
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775</id>
	<title>Imagine if the situation were reversed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255960920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Microsoft were to "block" Firefox from running due a security vulnerability it had, the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft were to " block " Firefox from running due a security vulnerability it had , the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft were to "block" Firefox from running due a security vulnerability it had, the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>aetherworld</author>
	<datestamp>1255962300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this a failed attempt at trolling?</p><p>It's a PLUGIN, not an ADD-ON. There is no way to uninstall ANY Plugins in Firefox. You can disable Add-Ons, you can uninstall Add-Ons and you can disable Plugins. But you cannot uninstall Plugins from within Firefox. Firefox simply loads all files in a specific Internet Plugins folder (not a Firefox-only plugin folder) and if it detects a plugin, it uses it.</p><p>Delete the file and you're good to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a failed attempt at trolling ? It 's a PLUGIN , not an ADD-ON .
There is no way to uninstall ANY Plugins in Firefox .
You can disable Add-Ons , you can uninstall Add-Ons and you can disable Plugins .
But you can not uninstall Plugins from within Firefox .
Firefox simply loads all files in a specific Internet Plugins folder ( not a Firefox-only plugin folder ) and if it detects a plugin , it uses it.Delete the file and you 're good to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a failed attempt at trolling?It's a PLUGIN, not an ADD-ON.
There is no way to uninstall ANY Plugins in Firefox.
You can disable Add-Ons, you can uninstall Add-Ons and you can disable Plugins.
But you cannot uninstall Plugins from within Firefox.
Firefox simply loads all files in a specific Internet Plugins folder (not a Firefox-only plugin folder) and if it detects a plugin, it uses it.Delete the file and you're good to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793101</id>
	<title>Translation, fixed that for you</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1255962600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"After Microsoft drove a dump truck full of money up to Mozilla headquarters..."</p><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" After Microsoft drove a dump truck full of money up to Mozilla headquarters... " There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"After Microsoft drove a dump truck full of money up to Mozilla headquarters..."There, fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795579</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255973220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No you're not, because Windows will try to recreate the file the next time you do a windows update.</p><p>Step 1: Delete the file.</p><p>Step 2: Create an empty text file with the same name as the file.</p><p>Step 3: Use your sharing and security settings to make that file read-only and untouchable by everyone.</p><p>Now, when windows update tries to recreate the file, it'll fail noisily. But you won't have to worry about it anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No you 're not , because Windows will try to recreate the file the next time you do a windows update.Step 1 : Delete the file.Step 2 : Create an empty text file with the same name as the file.Step 3 : Use your sharing and security settings to make that file read-only and untouchable by everyone.Now , when windows update tries to recreate the file , it 'll fail noisily .
But you wo n't have to worry about it anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you're not, because Windows will try to recreate the file the next time you do a windows update.Step 1: Delete the file.Step 2: Create an empty text file with the same name as the file.Step 3: Use your sharing and security settings to make that file read-only and untouchable by everyone.Now, when windows update tries to recreate the file, it'll fail noisily.
But you won't have to worry about it anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794851</id>
	<title>Re:Question is...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1255970280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will they allow users to uninstall it normally at any point?</p></div><p>Uninstall has been enabled for several months now. There had been a<nobr> <wbr></nobr><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/05/1532239" title="slashdot.org">/. story</a> [slashdot.org] about that</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will they allow users to uninstall it normally at any point ? Uninstall has been enabled for several months now .
There had been a / .
story [ slashdot.org ] about that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will they allow users to uninstall it normally at any point?Uninstall has been enabled for several months now.
There had been a /.
story [slashdot.org] about that
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793449</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>CNeb96</author>
	<datestamp>1255964220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't comment on MS's plugin because I don't know how it works, but Firefox does support extensions which are not displayed to the user. If they are installed in locations besides the profile directory (ie are not a normal extension a user chooses to install).  I don't think Mozilla's policy is quite that clear cut about when you should or shouldn't make something viewable by the user.</p><p><a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Install\_Manifests#hidden" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Install\_Manifests#hidden</a> [mozilla.org]</p><p>"hidden</p><p>Firefox 1.0 - 3.5 A boolean value that when true makes the add-on not show up in the add-ons list, provided the add-on is installed in a restricted access area (so it does not work for add-ons installed in the profile). This is for bundling integration hooks to larger applications where having an entry in the Extensions list does not make sense."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't comment on MS 's plugin because I do n't know how it works , but Firefox does support extensions which are not displayed to the user .
If they are installed in locations besides the profile directory ( ie are not a normal extension a user chooses to install ) .
I do n't think Mozilla 's policy is quite that clear cut about when you should or should n't make something viewable by the user.https : //developer.mozilla.org/en/Install \ _Manifests # hidden [ mozilla.org ] " hiddenFirefox 1.0 - 3.5 A boolean value that when true makes the add-on not show up in the add-ons list , provided the add-on is installed in a restricted access area ( so it does not work for add-ons installed in the profile ) .
This is for bundling integration hooks to larger applications where having an entry in the Extensions list does not make sense .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't comment on MS's plugin because I don't know how it works, but Firefox does support extensions which are not displayed to the user.
If they are installed in locations besides the profile directory (ie are not a normal extension a user chooses to install).
I don't think Mozilla's policy is quite that clear cut about when you should or shouldn't make something viewable by the user.https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Install\_Manifests#hidden [mozilla.org]"hiddenFirefox 1.0 - 3.5 A boolean value that when true makes the add-on not show up in the add-ons list, provided the add-on is installed in a restricted access area (so it does not work for add-ons installed in the profile).
This is for bundling integration hooks to larger applications where having an entry in the Extensions list does not make sense.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792643</id>
	<title>frsot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255960020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>frist psot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... darn, my browser crashed!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>frist psot ... darn , my browser crashed ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frist psot ... darn, my browser crashed!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794195</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's updated advisory</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1255967280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I use Firefox, which Internet Explorer update do I need to install?</p></div></blockquote><p>Now that's just plain funny. It's like saying that I need to make sure my car doors are locked when I'm using public transport.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I use Firefox , which Internet Explorer update do I need to install ? Now that 's just plain funny .
It 's like saying that I need to make sure my car doors are locked when I 'm using public transport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I use Firefox, which Internet Explorer update do I need to install?Now that's just plain funny.
It's like saying that I need to make sure my car doors are locked when I'm using public transport.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792993</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine if the situation were reversed</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1255962120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Microsoft were to "block" Firefox from running due a security vulnerability it had, the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world.</p></div><p>If you're going to draw parallels, at least learn to do it properly. If Mozilla would sneak in a plugin inside IE when you're doing something which you assume should not indulge in that behaviour, say e.g. updating Firefox, upon which Microsoft blocks this snuck piece of software, nobody in their right mind would say a thing. But yes, in your example, which is incorrect and irrelevant, people would -- and they would because they would be completely right in doing so, just like people are now with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET plugin which doesn't uninstall. Your kindergarden rhetorics won't work here drsmithy, if that is your <i>real</i> name.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft were to " block " Firefox from running due a security vulnerability it had , the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world.If you 're going to draw parallels , at least learn to do it properly .
If Mozilla would sneak in a plugin inside IE when you 're doing something which you assume should not indulge in that behaviour , say e.g .
updating Firefox , upon which Microsoft blocks this snuck piece of software , nobody in their right mind would say a thing .
But yes , in your example , which is incorrect and irrelevant , people would -- and they would because they would be completely right in doing so , just like people are now with the .NET plugin which does n't uninstall .
Your kindergarden rhetorics wo n't work here drsmithy , if that is your real name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft were to "block" Firefox from running due a security vulnerability it had, the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world.If you're going to draw parallels, at least learn to do it properly.
If Mozilla would sneak in a plugin inside IE when you're doing something which you assume should not indulge in that behaviour, say e.g.
updating Firefox, upon which Microsoft blocks this snuck piece of software, nobody in their right mind would say a thing.
But yes, in your example, which is incorrect and irrelevant, people would -- and they would because they would be completely right in doing so, just like people are now with the .NET plugin which doesn't uninstall.
Your kindergarden rhetorics won't work here drsmithy, if that is your real name.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793487</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>cyclocommuter</author>
	<datestamp>1255964400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't have to google for crazy instructions and edit the registy to uninstall the Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant 1.1 add-on. Just launch the add-ons dialog in FF, go to the Extensions Tab, select the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET add-on and click the Uninstall button or the Disable button if you just wish to disable but not to uninstall it. These 2 options are available for this add-on just like the other add-ons. For the WPF Plugin, select the Plugin Tab, select the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in from the list and click Disable. This is the only option available for Plug-ins which includes those from Java (of which there are 3 in my machine I may add), Adobe, Shockwave,  and others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to google for crazy instructions and edit the registy to uninstall the Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.1 add-on .
Just launch the add-ons dialog in FF , go to the Extensions Tab , select the .NET add-on and click the Uninstall button or the Disable button if you just wish to disable but not to uninstall it .
These 2 options are available for this add-on just like the other add-ons .
For the WPF Plugin , select the Plugin Tab , select the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in from the list and click Disable .
This is the only option available for Plug-ins which includes those from Java ( of which there are 3 in my machine I may add ) , Adobe , Shockwave , and others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to google for crazy instructions and edit the registy to uninstall the Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.1 add-on.
Just launch the add-ons dialog in FF, go to the Extensions Tab, select the .NET add-on and click the Uninstall button or the Disable button if you just wish to disable but not to uninstall it.
These 2 options are available for this add-on just like the other add-ons.
For the WPF Plugin, select the Plugin Tab, select the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in from the list and click Disable.
This is the only option available for Plug-ins which includes those from Java (of which there are 3 in my machine I may add), Adobe, Shockwave,  and others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793845</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255965900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of crap, do you even know what these plugins do? The answer is no, you have no clue. It's ClickOnce and the other enterprise crap which nearly all desktop users won't and don't use, hell, the people who do or might use it are probably using Internet Explorer anyway!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>MS has decided that it is needed on every system</p></div><p>Are you truly that stupid? The great Microsoft has spoken!... I bet you wouldn't be saying this if it was Windows Genuine Advantage that was being spoken about, but going by your previous comment you'd probably agree with that too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of crap , do you even know what these plugins do ?
The answer is no , you have no clue .
It 's ClickOnce and the other enterprise crap which nearly all desktop users wo n't and do n't use , hell , the people who do or might use it are probably using Internet Explorer anyway ! MS has decided that it is needed on every systemAre you truly that stupid ?
The great Microsoft has spoken ! .. .
I bet you would n't be saying this if it was Windows Genuine Advantage that was being spoken about , but going by your previous comment you 'd probably agree with that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of crap, do you even know what these plugins do?
The answer is no, you have no clue.
It's ClickOnce and the other enterprise crap which nearly all desktop users won't and don't use, hell, the people who do or might use it are probably using Internet Explorer anyway!MS has decided that it is needed on every systemAre you truly that stupid?
The great Microsoft has spoken!...
I bet you wouldn't be saying this if it was Windows Genuine Advantage that was being spoken about, but going by your previous comment you'd probably agree with that too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796569</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's updated advisory</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1255977180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.</i></p><p>Mark it up as another example of how the Firefox developers don't understand a multi-user, restricted-user environment.  It is often desirable to install programs on a machine-wide basis so that all users, regardless of their local security access, can use them.  In Firefox, plugins that are installed in this manner cannot be disabled by the user, even if the user has local administrative rights on the computer.</p><p>It's the same deal with Firefox's automatic updater allowing normal users to download and try installing browser updates but then failing over and over because the user doesn't have write access to C:\Program Files\Mozilla or the HKLM portion of the registry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.Mark it up as another example of how the Firefox developers do n't understand a multi-user , restricted-user environment .
It is often desirable to install programs on a machine-wide basis so that all users , regardless of their local security access , can use them .
In Firefox , plugins that are installed in this manner can not be disabled by the user , even if the user has local administrative rights on the computer.It 's the same deal with Firefox 's automatic updater allowing normal users to download and try installing browser updates but then failing over and over because the user does n't have write access to C : \ Program Files \ Mozilla or the HKLM portion of the registry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.Mark it up as another example of how the Firefox developers don't understand a multi-user, restricted-user environment.
It is often desirable to install programs on a machine-wide basis so that all users, regardless of their local security access, can use them.
In Firefox, plugins that are installed in this manner cannot be disabled by the user, even if the user has local administrative rights on the computer.It's the same deal with Firefox's automatic updater allowing normal users to download and try installing browser updates but then failing over and over because the user doesn't have write access to C:\Program Files\Mozilla or the HKLM portion of the registry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795071</id>
	<title>Re:sweet christ on a crispix!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255971300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if your OS is modifying the functionality of your favorite browser in a way you dont like, or forcing you to do things you dont like, then change your operating system. </i> </p><blockquote><div><p>Someone else wrote:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <i>Have you considered changing distributions? </i></p><p>Yes, every single time I try something like this, I very seriously consider getting a Mac.-- <a href="http://www.jwz.org/doc/linuxvideo.html" title="jwz.org">jwz</a> [jwz.org]</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if your OS is modifying the functionality of your favorite browser in a way you dont like , or forcing you to do things you dont like , then change your operating system .
Someone else wrote :             Have you considered changing distributions ?
Yes , every single time I try something like this , I very seriously consider getting a Mac.-- jwz [ jwz.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if your OS is modifying the functionality of your favorite browser in a way you dont like, or forcing you to do things you dont like, then change your operating system.
Someone else wrote:
            Have you considered changing distributions?
Yes, every single time I try something like this, I very seriously consider getting a Mac.-- jwz [jwz.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793463</id>
	<title>Shit!</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1255964280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can I block it back?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can I block it back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can I block it back?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794215</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's updated advisory</title>
	<author>kantos</author>
	<datestamp>1255967400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That too has been a focus of this whole fiasco, the fact that the plug-in exists isn't a problem, nor is the functionality it provides, which is critical to many enterprise FF users. The core of the whole thing and what has pissed most people off on both sides is that both MS and Mozilla took action without customer consent, effectively choosing for us. First MS for installing it, then Mozilla for disabling it. The resounding consensus has been: <b>"Could you at least ask first?"</b> By acting without consent both Microsoft and Mozilla have shown that they don't think their users can make an informed consenting decision about how they wish to use their browsers. Such an action is disrespectful and disgraceful of both parties. Microsoft should know better having been burned before, and Mozilla because such an action is against the core principles on which Firefox was marketed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That too has been a focus of this whole fiasco , the fact that the plug-in exists is n't a problem , nor is the functionality it provides , which is critical to many enterprise FF users .
The core of the whole thing and what has pissed most people off on both sides is that both MS and Mozilla took action without customer consent , effectively choosing for us .
First MS for installing it , then Mozilla for disabling it .
The resounding consensus has been : " Could you at least ask first ?
" By acting without consent both Microsoft and Mozilla have shown that they do n't think their users can make an informed consenting decision about how they wish to use their browsers .
Such an action is disrespectful and disgraceful of both parties .
Microsoft should know better having been burned before , and Mozilla because such an action is against the core principles on which Firefox was marketed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That too has been a focus of this whole fiasco, the fact that the plug-in exists isn't a problem, nor is the functionality it provides, which is critical to many enterprise FF users.
The core of the whole thing and what has pissed most people off on both sides is that both MS and Mozilla took action without customer consent, effectively choosing for us.
First MS for installing it, then Mozilla for disabling it.
The resounding consensus has been: "Could you at least ask first?
" By acting without consent both Microsoft and Mozilla have shown that they don't think their users can make an informed consenting decision about how they wish to use their browsers.
Such an action is disrespectful and disgraceful of both parties.
Microsoft should know better having been burned before, and Mozilla because such an action is against the core principles on which Firefox was marketed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795239</id>
	<title>Re:Why is everyone targeting MS on here?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1255972020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and if I choose to have a problem with it, I can uninstall it.</p></div><p>One of the problems was that you, actually, couldn't. The only way was by manually editing a registry key. Microsoft did not follow the convention of other Firefox plugins, where you can just uninstall or install a plugin - it wasn't listed.</p><p>Sneaky.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and if I choose to have a problem with it , I can uninstall it.One of the problems was that you , actually , could n't .
The only way was by manually editing a registry key .
Microsoft did not follow the convention of other Firefox plugins , where you can just uninstall or install a plugin - it was n't listed.Sneaky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and if I choose to have a problem with it, I can uninstall it.One of the problems was that you, actually, couldn't.
The only way was by manually editing a registry key.
Microsoft did not follow the convention of other Firefox plugins, where you can just uninstall or install a plugin - it wasn't listed.Sneaky.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797743</id>
	<title>Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255981620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The cardinal rule, as for as Firefox is concerned, is that the users rule. </i></p><p>You've got to be kidding - see Edward Lee as one example of a FF dev who tells users to bend over and enjoy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cardinal rule , as for as Firefox is concerned , is that the users rule .
You 've got to be kidding - see Edward Lee as one example of a FF dev who tells users to bend over and enjoy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cardinal rule, as for as Firefox is concerned, is that the users rule.
You've got to be kidding - see Edward Lee as one example of a FF dev who tells users to bend over and enjoy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795773</id>
	<title>Changing Blocks to Save the World</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1255973880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Mozilla previously blocked</em></p><p>Is Mozilla actually Elly the Elephant? The <a href="http://comics.com/pearls\_before\_swine/" title="comics.com">Pearls Before Swine</a> [comics.com] Oct 18, 2009 strip shows Elly the Elephant using blocks to save the world. I think the Internet has made me feel closer to others<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla previously blockedIs Mozilla actually Elly the Elephant ?
The Pearls Before Swine [ comics.com ] Oct 18 , 2009 strip shows Elly the Elephant using blocks to save the world .
I think the Internet has made me feel closer to others .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla previously blockedIs Mozilla actually Elly the Elephant?
The Pearls Before Swine [comics.com] Oct 18, 2009 strip shows Elly the Elephant using blocks to save the world.
I think the Internet has made me feel closer to others ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793295</id>
	<title>WTF is the summary saying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255963500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First the summary says Mozilla have unblocked the ".Net Assistant" add-on. Then it says Mozilla is working on a way to block a "Windows Presentation Framework" add-on  \_AS WELL\_. As well (meaning "in addition to") what? The first item mentioned was unblocked, not blocked. Typo, or incorrect sentence construction, or what? It's 2 lines, can't we get it right?</p><p>Or is this a way to make readers RTFA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First the summary says Mozilla have unblocked the " .Net Assistant " add-on .
Then it says Mozilla is working on a way to block a " Windows Presentation Framework " add-on \ _AS WELL \ _ .
As well ( meaning " in addition to " ) what ?
The first item mentioned was unblocked , not blocked .
Typo , or incorrect sentence construction , or what ?
It 's 2 lines , ca n't we get it right ? Or is this a way to make readers RTFA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First the summary says Mozilla have unblocked the ".Net Assistant" add-on.
Then it says Mozilla is working on a way to block a "Windows Presentation Framework" add-on  \_AS WELL\_.
As well (meaning "in addition to") what?
The first item mentioned was unblocked, not blocked.
Typo, or incorrect sentence construction, or what?
It's 2 lines, can't we get it right?Or is this a way to make readers RTFA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794369</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's updated advisory</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1255968000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.</p></div><p>This whole scandal brings up an interesting point. For "Plug-ins", Firefox has no obvious way to disable the feature. However, because MS's stuff was an "Add-on", people are angry there isn't a one-click UI. (The difference between the two is some technical nonsense which is of no interest to the end user.)</p><p>So the moral of the story is if you want to make it hard to uninstall, write a plug-in (like Apple/Adobe) and not an add-on.</p><p>Anyway, if anyone knows of an easy way to permanently disable Apple's crappy QuickTime plugin, please let me know. I'm sick of rooting it out every time iTunes has an update.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.This whole scandal brings up an interesting point .
For " Plug-ins " , Firefox has no obvious way to disable the feature .
However , because MS 's stuff was an " Add-on " , people are angry there is n't a one-click UI .
( The difference between the two is some technical nonsense which is of no interest to the end user .
) So the moral of the story is if you want to make it hard to uninstall , write a plug-in ( like Apple/Adobe ) and not an add-on.Anyway , if anyone knows of an easy way to permanently disable Apple 's crappy QuickTime plugin , please let me know .
I 'm sick of rooting it out every time iTunes has an update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.This whole scandal brings up an interesting point.
For "Plug-ins", Firefox has no obvious way to disable the feature.
However, because MS's stuff was an "Add-on", people are angry there isn't a one-click UI.
(The difference between the two is some technical nonsense which is of no interest to the end user.
)So the moral of the story is if you want to make it hard to uninstall, write a plug-in (like Apple/Adobe) and not an add-on.Anyway, if anyone knows of an easy way to permanently disable Apple's crappy QuickTime plugin, please let me know.
I'm sick of rooting it out every time iTunes has an update.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039</id>
	<title>Why is everyone targeting MS on here?</title>
	<author>tgd</author>
	<datestamp>1255962360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously -- I have FAR more of an issue with Firefox disabling a plugin *that I want there* and not providing a way to re-enable it (or at least any obvious way).</p><p>Microsoft may choose to say that Firefox integration is part of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework, and if I choose to have a problem with it, I can uninstall it. But where does the Mozilla organization get off disabling an extension I have, and may be using, without any ability to opt out?</p><p>The double standard on this would be funny if people weren't so serious about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously -- I have FAR more of an issue with Firefox disabling a plugin * that I want there * and not providing a way to re-enable it ( or at least any obvious way ) .Microsoft may choose to say that Firefox integration is part of the .NET framework , and if I choose to have a problem with it , I can uninstall it .
But where does the Mozilla organization get off disabling an extension I have , and may be using , without any ability to opt out ? The double standard on this would be funny if people were n't so serious about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously -- I have FAR more of an issue with Firefox disabling a plugin *that I want there* and not providing a way to re-enable it (or at least any obvious way).Microsoft may choose to say that Firefox integration is part of the .NET framework, and if I choose to have a problem with it, I can uninstall it.
But where does the Mozilla organization get off disabling an extension I have, and may be using, without any ability to opt out?The double standard on this would be funny if people weren't so serious about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792827</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255961220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does uninstalling<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net remove it?</p><p>If you don't like this plug-in, don't install<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net.  It's part of that package.  You have a choice, which although you might argue you didn't know about before, you certainly do know.  Or disable the plug-in yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does uninstalling .Net remove it ? If you do n't like this plug-in , do n't install .Net .
It 's part of that package .
You have a choice , which although you might argue you did n't know about before , you certainly do know .
Or disable the plug-in yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does uninstalling .Net remove it?If you don't like this plug-in, don't install .Net.
It's part of that package.
You have a choice, which although you might argue you didn't know about before, you certainly do know.
Or disable the plug-in yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795445</id>
	<title>ClickOnce users should be using IE?</title>
	<author>colfer</author>
	<datestamp>1255972740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at least I would. Am I the only one that feels more comfortable with things like that relegated to IE? I don't use the IE Tab extension either, I use IE View, so it opens in IE. Maybe it's just a personal preference.</p><p>I realize a plugin like Java has the same powers as ClickOnce, but I just don't want more MS on the FF side. A good feature would be:</p><p> "Warn user that a third party add-on has been installed and allow disabling".
<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=476430" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=476430</a> [mozilla.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least I would .
Am I the only one that feels more comfortable with things like that relegated to IE ?
I do n't use the IE Tab extension either , I use IE View , so it opens in IE .
Maybe it 's just a personal preference.I realize a plugin like Java has the same powers as ClickOnce , but I just do n't want more MS on the FF side .
A good feature would be : " Warn user that a third party add-on has been installed and allow disabling " .
https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 476430 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least I would.
Am I the only one that feels more comfortable with things like that relegated to IE?
I don't use the IE Tab extension either, I use IE View, so it opens in IE.
Maybe it's just a personal preference.I realize a plugin like Java has the same powers as ClickOnce, but I just don't want more MS on the FF side.
A good feature would be: "Warn user that a third party add-on has been installed and allow disabling".
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=476430 [mozilla.org] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29804255</id>
	<title>Microsoft p0wns Firefox.</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1255975260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This why i dont come running to Firefox with open arms.<br>(staying with Opera)</p><p>What if Firefox pissed in Microsoft's IE's pool ?!?<br>Microsoft would turn into the Hulk of Lawyers.</p><p>Microsoft: BU!<br>Firefox: Fold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This why i dont come running to Firefox with open arms .
( staying with Opera ) What if Firefox pissed in Microsoft 's IE 's pool ? !
? Microsoft would turn into the Hulk of Lawyers.Microsoft : BU ! Firefox : Fold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This why i dont come running to Firefox with open arms.
(staying with Opera)What if Firefox pissed in Microsoft's IE's pool ?!
?Microsoft would turn into the Hulk of Lawyers.Microsoft: BU!Firefox: Fold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29801739</id>
	<title>Piss poor moves by both Microsoft and Mozilla</title>
	<author>d\_jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1255954920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole thing was handled piss poor by both Microsoft and Mozilla.</p><p>First off, WHY did MS install a FF plugin which cannot be disabled/uninstalled by normal means? And why does FF ALLOW plugins to have this functionality?</p><p>But onto the core issue.. why is Mozilla disabling the plugin AFTER THE FLAW HAS ALREADY BEEN PATCHED BY MICROSOFT??!</p><p>The proper way Mozilla should have went about this if they were concerned with users who have not patched their systems (and on that note - MS calling it an IE update was a BAD IDEA as well, since it doesn't only affect IE..) would be as follows:<br>1) If system has been patched (check<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dll versions or something which would indicate patch installed..), LEAVE IT ALONE.<br>2) If not, pop up a message saying there is a vulnerability, and suggest it is a VERY GOOD IDEA to either:<br>a) Allow FF to disable the extension, but if not..<br>b) STRONGLY RECOMMEND the user apply the security update.</p><p>And if this is not possible in the current version of FF, push out an update (installed only with consent/auto updates enabled..) WITH FUNCTIONALITY TO ALLOW THIS.</p><p>I think it is DOWNRIGHT SCARY - on par with the Amazon Kindle 1984 debacle - that Mozilla has the ability to disable plugins on MY COMPUTER without my knowledge or consent.</p><p>I'm done now.. I feel a bit better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole thing was handled piss poor by both Microsoft and Mozilla.First off , WHY did MS install a FF plugin which can not be disabled/uninstalled by normal means ?
And why does FF ALLOW plugins to have this functionality ? But onto the core issue.. why is Mozilla disabling the plugin AFTER THE FLAW HAS ALREADY BEEN PATCHED BY MICROSOFT ? ?
! The proper way Mozilla should have went about this if they were concerned with users who have not patched their systems ( and on that note - MS calling it an IE update was a BAD IDEA as well , since it does n't only affect IE.. ) would be as follows : 1 ) If system has been patched ( check .dll versions or something which would indicate patch installed.. ) , LEAVE IT ALONE.2 ) If not , pop up a message saying there is a vulnerability , and suggest it is a VERY GOOD IDEA to either : a ) Allow FF to disable the extension , but if not..b ) STRONGLY RECOMMEND the user apply the security update.And if this is not possible in the current version of FF , push out an update ( installed only with consent/auto updates enabled.. ) WITH FUNCTIONALITY TO ALLOW THIS.I think it is DOWNRIGHT SCARY - on par with the Amazon Kindle 1984 debacle - that Mozilla has the ability to disable plugins on MY COMPUTER without my knowledge or consent.I 'm done now.. I feel a bit better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole thing was handled piss poor by both Microsoft and Mozilla.First off, WHY did MS install a FF plugin which cannot be disabled/uninstalled by normal means?
And why does FF ALLOW plugins to have this functionality?But onto the core issue.. why is Mozilla disabling the plugin AFTER THE FLAW HAS ALREADY BEEN PATCHED BY MICROSOFT??
!The proper way Mozilla should have went about this if they were concerned with users who have not patched their systems (and on that note - MS calling it an IE update was a BAD IDEA as well, since it doesn't only affect IE..) would be as follows:1) If system has been patched (check .dll versions or something which would indicate patch installed..), LEAVE IT ALONE.2) If not, pop up a message saying there is a vulnerability, and suggest it is a VERY GOOD IDEA to either:a) Allow FF to disable the extension, but if not..b) STRONGLY RECOMMEND the user apply the security update.And if this is not possible in the current version of FF, push out an update (installed only with consent/auto updates enabled..) WITH FUNCTIONALITY TO ALLOW THIS.I think it is DOWNRIGHT SCARY - on par with the Amazon Kindle 1984 debacle - that Mozilla has the ability to disable plugins on MY COMPUTER without my knowledge or consent.I'm done now.. I feel a bit better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29801191</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255952160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla Unblocks Microsoft's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Addon</p></div><p>Shit!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla Unblocks Microsoft 's .NET AddonShit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla Unblocks Microsoft's .NET AddonShit!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796877</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's updated advisory</title>
	<author>cyber-dragon.net</author>
	<datestamp>1255978260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They only missed the options piece of this whole thing. Their base assumptions were correct, that disabling a faulty plugin was what most people would want to do. Most would not even be aware of the fact it had been done nor that they had this plugin in the first place. Releasing a bulletin telling people to disable it is worthless.</p><p>What they DID need to do is introduce a warning saying "this plugin has been disabled for security reasons, would you like to re-enable it?" that will come up each time it's loaded until fixed, giving the user a choice.</p><p>To not disable it would be as irresponsible on Mozilla's part as not patching the hole was on Microsoft's. They just need better communication with users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They only missed the options piece of this whole thing .
Their base assumptions were correct , that disabling a faulty plugin was what most people would want to do .
Most would not even be aware of the fact it had been done nor that they had this plugin in the first place .
Releasing a bulletin telling people to disable it is worthless.What they DID need to do is introduce a warning saying " this plugin has been disabled for security reasons , would you like to re-enable it ?
" that will come up each time it 's loaded until fixed , giving the user a choice.To not disable it would be as irresponsible on Mozilla 's part as not patching the hole was on Microsoft 's .
They just need better communication with users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They only missed the options piece of this whole thing.
Their base assumptions were correct, that disabling a faulty plugin was what most people would want to do.
Most would not even be aware of the fact it had been done nor that they had this plugin in the first place.
Releasing a bulletin telling people to disable it is worthless.What they DID need to do is introduce a warning saying "this plugin has been disabled for security reasons, would you like to re-enable it?
" that will come up each time it's loaded until fixed, giving the user a choice.To not disable it would be as irresponsible on Mozilla's part as not patching the hole was on Microsoft's.
They just need better communication with users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792641</id>
	<title>They're just sayin'...</title>
	<author>ZekoMal</author>
	<datestamp>1255960020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...what we're all thinkin'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...what we 're all thinkin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...what we're all thinkin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793903</id>
	<title>sweet christ on a crispix!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255966200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Slashdot as a community needs to take a step back, relax, and reconfirm: its just a browser.<br>
if your OS is modifying the functionality of your favorite browser in a way you dont like, or forcing you to do things you dont like, then <b>change your operating system.</b>
<br>
similarly, if your browser isn't performing to your expectations, or disabling functionality you want, <b>change your browser</b>
<br> <br>for a real treat, try changing both at the same time! but for god sake stop with the asinine speculation and quit trying to turn this into legitimate news for nerds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Slashdot as a community needs to take a step back , relax , and reconfirm : its just a browser .
if your OS is modifying the functionality of your favorite browser in a way you dont like , or forcing you to do things you dont like , then change your operating system .
similarly , if your browser is n't performing to your expectations , or disabling functionality you want , change your browser for a real treat , try changing both at the same time !
but for god sake stop with the asinine speculation and quit trying to turn this into legitimate news for nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Slashdot as a community needs to take a step back, relax, and reconfirm: its just a browser.
if your OS is modifying the functionality of your favorite browser in a way you dont like, or forcing you to do things you dont like, then change your operating system.
similarly, if your browser isn't performing to your expectations, or disabling functionality you want, change your browser
 for a real treat, try changing both at the same time!
but for god sake stop with the asinine speculation and quit trying to turn this into legitimate news for nerds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795247</id>
	<title>Re:Question is...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1255972020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was fixed ages ago. How did this get modded up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was fixed ages ago .
How did this get modded up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was fixed ages ago.
How did this get modded up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794393</id>
	<title>Malware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255968180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is acting like malware.  I don't understand the surprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is acting like malware .
I do n't understand the surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is acting like malware.
I don't understand the surprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795197</id>
	<title>Re:Why is everyone targeting MS on here?</title>
	<author>Steeltoe</author>
	<datestamp>1255971840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was more upset when seeing an addon on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET which I couldn't disable the other day. It somehow got updated, and is now able to disable / uninstall, but the plugin will still be there.</p><p>Since I don't use this, I have no qualms about Mozilla disabling something which gives away the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET version on my computer and possible ways of breakin.</p><p>But I can see your point also, if you really want it there (have no idea why you would want to though), it's a bit unsettling.</p><p>Thing is, with Mozilla, we can *talk* about it, and they will listen.<br>With Microsoft we have to shout, boycot, advertise liasons with Linux solutions, just to get a small security patch, if anything at all..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was more upset when seeing an addon on .NET which I could n't disable the other day .
It somehow got updated , and is now able to disable / uninstall , but the plugin will still be there.Since I do n't use this , I have no qualms about Mozilla disabling something which gives away the .NET version on my computer and possible ways of breakin.But I can see your point also , if you really want it there ( have no idea why you would want to though ) , it 's a bit unsettling.Thing is , with Mozilla , we can * talk * about it , and they will listen.With Microsoft we have to shout , boycot , advertise liasons with Linux solutions , just to get a small security patch , if anything at all. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was more upset when seeing an addon on .NET which I couldn't disable the other day.
It somehow got updated, and is now able to disable / uninstall, but the plugin will still be there.Since I don't use this, I have no qualms about Mozilla disabling something which gives away the .NET version on my computer and possible ways of breakin.But I can see your point also, if you really want it there (have no idea why you would want to though), it's a bit unsettling.Thing is, with Mozilla, we can *talk* about it, and they will listen.With Microsoft we have to shout, boycot, advertise liasons with Linux solutions, just to get a small security patch, if anything at all..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793145</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't uninstall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255962780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If I can't delete it, it's malware.</p><p>It's a component of your OS. Whether it's crucial to you is an entirely different discussion - if you want your OS to be as bare as possible, Windows is not for you. MS has decided that it is needed on every system so they can make certain assumptions on system usage and updates. Would you like to be able to delete, say, your kernel executable? Is that malware too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If I ca n't delete it , it 's malware.It 's a component of your OS .
Whether it 's crucial to you is an entirely different discussion - if you want your OS to be as bare as possible , Windows is not for you .
MS has decided that it is needed on every system so they can make certain assumptions on system usage and updates .
Would you like to be able to delete , say , your kernel executable ?
Is that malware too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If I can't delete it, it's malware.It's a component of your OS.
Whether it's crucial to you is an entirely different discussion - if you want your OS to be as bare as possible, Windows is not for you.
MS has decided that it is needed on every system so they can make certain assumptions on system usage and updates.
Would you like to be able to delete, say, your kernel executable?
Is that malware too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797047</id>
	<title>How about an unistal button</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1255978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea like yesterday</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea like yesterday</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea like yesterday</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797741</id>
	<title>Very Bad idea</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1255981620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone besides me think this blocking programs is a very bad idea?? What if Foxfire becomes a security risk itself?,which it has on occasion/. Is MS now going to block users of Foxfire until they fix there security holes  for being a threat to windows security?? This can turn very badly for programs and applications</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone besides me think this blocking programs is a very bad idea ? ?
What if Foxfire becomes a security risk itself ? ,which it has on occasion/ .
Is MS now going to block users of Foxfire until they fix there security holes for being a threat to windows security ? ?
This can turn very badly for programs and applications</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone besides me think this blocking programs is a very bad idea??
What if Foxfire becomes a security risk itself?,which it has on occasion/.
Is MS now going to block users of Foxfire until they fix there security holes  for being a threat to windows security??
This can turn very badly for programs and applications</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796655</id>
	<title>Too late, but...</title>
	<author>WetCat</author>
	<datestamp>1255977480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia, plugin unblocks YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , plugin unblocks YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, plugin unblocks YOU!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29801191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29801853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29819641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1215230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29801853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29801191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29795051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29797793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794215
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29794369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29796569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1215230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29819641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29792855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1215230.29793277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
