<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_25_1842246</id>
	<title>When Software Leaks (and What Really Goes Down)</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256498820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/conhopper" rel="nofollow">Bryant</a> writes <i>"The Windows community is somewhat notorious for leaks from upcoming versions of Windows (obligatory link to <a href="http://msftkitchen.com/">this guy</a> since that's most of what he does), and while the official PR word from Microsoft and many other companies with regards to leaks is a simple 'no comment,' no one has really gotten a candid, inside look at the various things that go down when word, screenshots, or builds of upcoming software leak. I managed to get some time with a senior Microsoft employee for <a href="http://www.aeroxp.org/2009/10/the-effects-of-leaks/">the sake of discussing leaks</a>, and the conclusions reached (leaks heavily affect communication, not so much the product schedule) as well as what these guys actually have to deal with whenever someone leaks a build, breaks an embargo, etc. may actually be a surprise given what most companies try to instill in the public mind."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bryant writes " The Windows community is somewhat notorious for leaks from upcoming versions of Windows ( obligatory link to this guy since that 's most of what he does ) , and while the official PR word from Microsoft and many other companies with regards to leaks is a simple 'no comment, ' no one has really gotten a candid , inside look at the various things that go down when word , screenshots , or builds of upcoming software leak .
I managed to get some time with a senior Microsoft employee for the sake of discussing leaks , and the conclusions reached ( leaks heavily affect communication , not so much the product schedule ) as well as what these guys actually have to deal with whenever someone leaks a build , breaks an embargo , etc .
may actually be a surprise given what most companies try to instill in the public mind .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bryant writes "The Windows community is somewhat notorious for leaks from upcoming versions of Windows (obligatory link to this guy since that's most of what he does), and while the official PR word from Microsoft and many other companies with regards to leaks is a simple 'no comment,' no one has really gotten a candid, inside look at the various things that go down when word, screenshots, or builds of upcoming software leak.
I managed to get some time with a senior Microsoft employee for the sake of discussing leaks, and the conclusions reached (leaks heavily affect communication, not so much the product schedule) as well as what these guys actually have to deal with whenever someone leaks a build, breaks an embargo, etc.
may actually be a surprise given what most companies try to instill in the public mind.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867893</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256475180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's free advertising. After a leak, the marketing department deals with it by spending their now surplus advertising budget on champagne, blow and hookers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's free advertising .
After a leak , the marketing department deals with it by spending their now surplus advertising budget on champagne , blow and hookers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's free advertising.
After a leak, the marketing department deals with it by spending their now surplus advertising budget on champagne, blow and hookers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256465940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Minnesotans will vehemently disagree and tell you Canadians speak like that, then Canadians will turn around and cuss you out in French. Really though, nobody talks like that except old folks of Scandinavian descent and no one else in Minnesota does unless you are an asshole tourist looking to get your ass kicked. As a matter of fact, the actual "accent" or "dialect" we possess, or rather the lack of an accent or dialect, is often emulated by television and movie actors because the quality of our spoken English is the most clear and easily understood in the United States.<br> <br>

If you really want to make fun of Minnesotan speech, try slurring like a drunk. The town I grew up in, population not exceeding 2,000, has about a dozen bars. The town I live in now has about twenty, with over a dozen of those on main street, as well as three liquor stores on main as well, with a population of about 8,500 people. Drinking and driving isn't an issue around here, it's a competitive sport. So basically if you talk like you've had about a case of beer in one sitting, you'll sound like a Minnesotan, or rather, an Iron Ranger. Beyond that, we really don't have any obvious speech deficiencies, permanent effects of prolonged alcohol abuse notwithstanding.<br> <br>

Either way, I'm not so much proud of where I live (I'm really not) as much as I can't stand the ridiculous idea that everyone in Minnesota "speak like dat stupid woman from dat Fargo movie, oh ya doncha know. Uff da!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Minnesotans will vehemently disagree and tell you Canadians speak like that , then Canadians will turn around and cuss you out in French .
Really though , nobody talks like that except old folks of Scandinavian descent and no one else in Minnesota does unless you are an asshole tourist looking to get your ass kicked .
As a matter of fact , the actual " accent " or " dialect " we possess , or rather the lack of an accent or dialect , is often emulated by television and movie actors because the quality of our spoken English is the most clear and easily understood in the United States .
If you really want to make fun of Minnesotan speech , try slurring like a drunk .
The town I grew up in , population not exceeding 2,000 , has about a dozen bars .
The town I live in now has about twenty , with over a dozen of those on main street , as well as three liquor stores on main as well , with a population of about 8,500 people .
Drinking and driving is n't an issue around here , it 's a competitive sport .
So basically if you talk like you 've had about a case of beer in one sitting , you 'll sound like a Minnesotan , or rather , an Iron Ranger .
Beyond that , we really do n't have any obvious speech deficiencies , permanent effects of prolonged alcohol abuse notwithstanding .
Either way , I 'm not so much proud of where I live ( I 'm really not ) as much as I ca n't stand the ridiculous idea that everyone in Minnesota " speak like dat stupid woman from dat Fargo movie , oh ya doncha know .
Uff da !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minnesotans will vehemently disagree and tell you Canadians speak like that, then Canadians will turn around and cuss you out in French.
Really though, nobody talks like that except old folks of Scandinavian descent and no one else in Minnesota does unless you are an asshole tourist looking to get your ass kicked.
As a matter of fact, the actual "accent" or "dialect" we possess, or rather the lack of an accent or dialect, is often emulated by television and movie actors because the quality of our spoken English is the most clear and easily understood in the United States.
If you really want to make fun of Minnesotan speech, try slurring like a drunk.
The town I grew up in, population not exceeding 2,000, has about a dozen bars.
The town I live in now has about twenty, with over a dozen of those on main street, as well as three liquor stores on main as well, with a population of about 8,500 people.
Drinking and driving isn't an issue around here, it's a competitive sport.
So basically if you talk like you've had about a case of beer in one sitting, you'll sound like a Minnesotan, or rather, an Iron Ranger.
Beyond that, we really don't have any obvious speech deficiencies, permanent effects of prolonged alcohol abuse notwithstanding.
Either way, I'm not so much proud of where I live (I'm really not) as much as I can't stand the ridiculous idea that everyone in Minnesota "speak like dat stupid woman from dat Fargo movie, oh ya doncha know.
Uff da!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866587</id>
	<title>I was so confused...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256503080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I though they were talking about memory leaks at first.  I was a bit confused, and the title does not make it any more clear</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I though they were talking about memory leaks at first .
I was a bit confused , and the title does not make it any more clear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I though they were talking about memory leaks at first.
I was a bit confused, and the title does not make it any more clear</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866859</id>
	<title>Real security slows things down too much.</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1256462340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Real security slows things down too much, so companies get by with "good enough" and then get litigious if things go wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real security slows things down too much , so companies get by with " good enough " and then get litigious if things go wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real security slows things down too much, so companies get by with "good enough" and then get litigious if things go wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867833</id>
	<title>My software doesn't leak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256474280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Java, so my software doesn't have memory leaks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Java , so my software does n't have memory leaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Java, so my software doesn't have memory leaks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29872495</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1256572140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...]they are not calculated or deliberate. There is no super secrete leak committee.</p></div><p>
That's <i>exactly</i> what a super secret leak committee would want people to think!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] they are not calculated or deliberate .
There is no super secrete leak committee .
That 's exactly what a super secret leak committee would want people to think !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...]they are not calculated or deliberate.
There is no super secrete leak committee.
That's exactly what a super secret leak committee would want people to think!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29873495</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Bob-taro</author>
	<datestamp>1256577120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your absense of knowledge of this "super secrete" committee</p> </div><p>"Absense"?  People who don't spell check shouldn't throw stones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your absense of knowledge of this " super secrete " committee " Absense " ?
People who do n't spell check should n't throw stones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your absense of knowledge of this "super secrete" committee "Absense"?
People who don't spell check shouldn't throw stones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29871189</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>poofmeisterp</author>
	<datestamp>1256564880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My father grew up there, so he and my grandfather have mentioned several times when we discussed Kansas, Iowa, and Minnesota, that MN was the one with the accent.  That's where I get my info from.</p><p>I'll add yours onto the stack, as well.  That's how people learn; listening to others.  It's a shame that so many people are hard-set on themselves being 100\% right all of the time.</p><p>...and no, I'm not referring to you.  I'm talking about everyone.  I was actually glad to see your message.  Me likey the learning.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My father grew up there , so he and my grandfather have mentioned several times when we discussed Kansas , Iowa , and Minnesota , that MN was the one with the accent .
That 's where I get my info from.I 'll add yours onto the stack , as well .
That 's how people learn ; listening to others .
It 's a shame that so many people are hard-set on themselves being 100 \ % right all of the time....and no , I 'm not referring to you .
I 'm talking about everyone .
I was actually glad to see your message .
Me likey the learning .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father grew up there, so he and my grandfather have mentioned several times when we discussed Kansas, Iowa, and Minnesota, that MN was the one with the accent.
That's where I get my info from.I'll add yours onto the stack, as well.
That's how people learn; listening to others.
It's a shame that so many people are hard-set on themselves being 100\% right all of the time....and no, I'm not referring to you.
I'm talking about everyone.
I was actually glad to see your message.
Me likey the learning.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868949</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256489700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>really? when I worked at MS, my office mate was literally feeding daily builds of chicago out the door using the (at the time) T3 and ftp gateway.   I reported him.  I was fired the next day.  He was not.  You guys are fucking idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>really ?
when I worked at MS , my office mate was literally feeding daily builds of chicago out the door using the ( at the time ) T3 and ftp gateway .
I reported him .
I was fired the next day .
He was not .
You guys are fucking idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really?
when I worked at MS, my office mate was literally feeding daily builds of chicago out the door using the (at the time) T3 and ftp gateway.
I reported him.
I was fired the next day.
He was not.
You guys are fucking idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867047</id>
	<title>Re:They are effective even if they aren't quality</title>
	<author>Stupendoussteve</author>
	<datestamp>1256464200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has nothing to do with marketing "in a fashion", that is the definition of marketing period.</p><p>Apple could be viewed the same way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with marketing " in a fashion " , that is the definition of marketing period.Apple could be viewed the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with marketing "in a fashion", that is the definition of marketing period.Apple could be viewed the same way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867239</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256466600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's like a  big distraction, and you can't do your day job! Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's like a big distraction , and you ca n't do your day job !
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's like a  big distraction, and you can't do your day job!
Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869141</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, THOSE leaks</title>
	<author>cliath</author>
	<datestamp>1256493240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Took you a few minutes to read the summary?<blockquote><div><p>...with whenever someone leaks a build...</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Took you a few minutes to read the summary ? ...with whenever someone leaks a build.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Took you a few minutes to read the summary?...with whenever someone leaks a build...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869837</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256589120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try practicing a thoughtful pause. "You know" makes you appear an amateur if you're talking to any kind of experts on the subject matter. (Actually I've come to prefer an honest "ummm". Nothing dumb about your aknowledging that somebody shot a sharp question at you! In effect only makes your comeback -- the actual answer you quickly composed in ummm milliseconds -- even better. There's only so far that clever tricks are going to carry you in professional situations.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try practicing a thoughtful pause .
" You know " makes you appear an amateur if you 're talking to any kind of experts on the subject matter .
( Actually I 've come to prefer an honest " ummm " .
Nothing dumb about your aknowledging that somebody shot a sharp question at you !
In effect only makes your comeback -- the actual answer you quickly composed in ummm milliseconds -- even better .
There 's only so far that clever tricks are going to carry you in professional situations .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try practicing a thoughtful pause.
"You know" makes you appear an amateur if you're talking to any kind of experts on the subject matter.
(Actually I've come to prefer an honest "ummm".
Nothing dumb about your aknowledging that somebody shot a sharp question at you!
In effect only makes your comeback -- the actual answer you quickly composed in ummm milliseconds -- even better.
There's only so far that clever tricks are going to carry you in professional situations.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867097</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256464680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who often speaks publicly, I have trained myself to replace "ummm" with "you know."  It works very well in verbal communication because it buys the speaker time and doesn't make either party uncomfortable or appear dumb.

I guess it doesn't translate well to print, I'll have to remember that should I be interviewed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who often speaks publicly , I have trained myself to replace " ummm " with " you know .
" It works very well in verbal communication because it buys the speaker time and does n't make either party uncomfortable or appear dumb .
I guess it does n't translate well to print , I 'll have to remember that should I be interviewed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who often speaks publicly, I have trained myself to replace "ummm" with "you know.
"  It works very well in verbal communication because it buys the speaker time and doesn't make either party uncomfortable or appear dumb.
I guess it doesn't translate well to print, I'll have to remember that should I be interviewed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868983</id>
	<title>Mr. ForeDecker? A Windows 7 change MS needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256490360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows" - by Foredecker (161844) * on Sunday October 25, @04:03PM (#29866759) Homepage Journal</b></p></div><p> <b>GOOD: Then, you're JUST THE MAN I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF!</b></p><p>I say that, because nobody answered me on it here (your companies' own "Engineering Windows 7" blog no less):</p><p>----</p><p><b>Welcome to our blog dedicated to the engineering of Microsoft Windows 7</b></p><p>http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx</p><p>----</p><p><b>QUESTION:</b></p><p>Why was the ability to use 0 as a "blocking IP address" removed from HOSTS files, from 12/09/2008 onwards, in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 it is this way also!</p><p>(&amp; it IS completely legit to use 0, &amp; faster + MORE EFFICIENT - Windows 2000, pre Service Pack #4 couldn't use it, but from then on it could, &amp; Windows XP + Server 2003 always could, so, that is PROOF you guys added it in, &amp; are now pulling it... why? Doing so, affects effciency of it adversely... read on!)</p><p><b>First of all, on "legit IP address" using 0</b> - because when you ping a "zero blocked" site you get back 0.0.0.0 on Windows 2000/XP/Serer 2003.</p><p><b>Secondly</b>, using that in a HOSTS file to protect one's self from KNOWN 'bad sites &amp;/or botnet command &amp; control servers for instance, you cannot get to them (&amp; thus you are safe from them via this practice)</p><p><b>Third &amp; MOST importantly?</b></p><p>When you perform the File I/O Open/Read/Close cycle on a LARGE HOSTS file (with these types of entries for protection)? Loading said file is FAR faster... have your coders try this themselves, by loading a large HOSTS files into a listbox &amp; timing it using multimedia hi-resolution timers you register with the system.</p><p>It's inefficient to use 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter" address, because it IS larger by 8 bytes per line &amp; does do a "loopback operation", which 0 &amp;/.or 0.0.0.0 do not).</p><p>Also, "technically speaking"? Well, the DNS cache perform a DECIMAL to HEXADECIMAL conversion on 0.0.0.0, and on 127.0.0.1... &amp; 0? It doesn't NEED THAT, period. (because 0-9 in decimal are 0-9 in hex too).</p><p>That's also more efficient by using 0... period!</p><p>But, the most important part is, that the SMALLER THE FILE IS, the faster it loads from DISK into RAM, period. Using 0 makes it smaller, per line during reads (until the trailer record cr+lf or null is hit, then next line is read), &amp; thus faster, per line.</p><p>In a HOSTS like I use, with 660,000 entries in it of KNOWN bad malscripted sites &amp;/or botnet command &amp; control servers? It keeps me safe, but is SLOWER using the longer IP addresses, per line.</p><p>E.G.-&gt; 127.0.0.1 makes my HOSTS file bloat to 22++mb in size... using the next least inefficient entry of 0.0.0.0 makes it 18++mb in size! Using 0, by way of comparison? ONLY 14mb in size... a 30\% improvement!</p><p>The physics of this 'back me up', &amp; I would like to know if you have enough "PULL" to mention this to the team that handles the IP stack!</p><p>Thanks!</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; You may also wish to read that blog there, because I noted even more here (rootkit.com is a site where 'hacker/cracker' types &amp; researchers "hang out", &amp; they said THIS about your new single part "WFP" base filtering engine for protection (no longer uses RDR20.DLL which Windows 2000 uses as a LSP, but it does use the same one XP/Server 2003 does for an LSP) but, if you want more details on this &amp; why it's "worse" possibly, per rootkit.com?</p><p>http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952</p><p><b>PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:</b></p><p><b>"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."</b></p><p>That was a DIRECT QUOTE from said URL I just posted from rootkit.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Read more at the IBM site for details &amp; DO please get back to us, or me, @ apk4776239@hotmail.com</p><p><b>http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2008/12/02/engineering-windows-7-2/</b></p><p>Thanks, because I would just like to know a SOLID technical reason WHY THIS WAS DONE! That's all, &amp; IF you read this? I wager you too will be CURIOUS why your IP team has ruined efficiency!</p><p><b> Please, on this last note? DO READ WHAT I WROTE AT IBM, for more detail</b> &amp; WHY this "single part" (actually dual part, because only ipfltdrv.sys is gone now, vs. ipsec.sys + ipnat.sys in Windows 7, VISTA. &amp; Server 2008 vs. previous models of Windows NT based OS like 2000/XP/Server2003) is worse, &amp; not on HOSTS files, but, because the "malware makers" can take advantage of it (&amp; they have CODE FOR IT, right there too)... thanks!</p><p>By the by - I am LOVING Windows 7 64-bit, but I'd like to see patches to these 2 issues &amp; you ARE the man to talk to here, or, @ least get a SOLID logical tech answer as to WHY THESE 2 THINGS WERE DONE (they don't help Windows, they HARM it)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows " - by Foredecker ( 161844 ) * on Sunday October 25 , @ 04 : 03PM ( # 29866759 ) Homepage Journal GOOD : Then , you 're JUST THE MAN I 'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF ! I say that , because nobody answered me on it here ( your companies ' own " Engineering Windows 7 " blog no less ) : ----Welcome to our blog dedicated to the engineering of Microsoft Windows 7http : //blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx----QUESTION : Why was the ability to use 0 as a " blocking IP address " removed from HOSTS files , from 12/09/2008 onwards , in VISTA , Windows Server 2008 , &amp; Windows 7 it is this way also !
( &amp; it IS completely legit to use 0 , &amp; faster + MORE EFFICIENT - Windows 2000 , pre Service Pack # 4 could n't use it , but from then on it could , &amp; Windows XP + Server 2003 always could , so , that is PROOF you guys added it in , &amp; are now pulling it... why ? Doing so , affects effciency of it adversely... read on !
) First of all , on " legit IP address " using 0 - because when you ping a " zero blocked " site you get back 0.0.0.0 on Windows 2000/XP/Serer 2003.Secondly , using that in a HOSTS file to protect one 's self from KNOWN 'bad sites &amp;/or botnet command &amp; control servers for instance , you can not get to them ( &amp; thus you are safe from them via this practice ) Third &amp; MOST importantly ? When you perform the File I/O Open/Read/Close cycle on a LARGE HOSTS file ( with these types of entries for protection ) ?
Loading said file is FAR faster... have your coders try this themselves , by loading a large HOSTS files into a listbox &amp; timing it using multimedia hi-resolution timers you register with the system.It 's inefficient to use 127.0.0.1 ( the " loopback adapter " address , because it IS larger by 8 bytes per line &amp; does do a " loopback operation " , which 0 &amp;/.or 0.0.0.0 do not ) .Also , " technically speaking " ?
Well , the DNS cache perform a DECIMAL to HEXADECIMAL conversion on 0.0.0.0 , and on 127.0.0.1... &amp; 0 ?
It does n't NEED THAT , period .
( because 0-9 in decimal are 0-9 in hex too ) .That 's also more efficient by using 0... period ! But , the most important part is , that the SMALLER THE FILE IS , the faster it loads from DISK into RAM , period .
Using 0 makes it smaller , per line during reads ( until the trailer record cr + lf or null is hit , then next line is read ) , &amp; thus faster , per line.In a HOSTS like I use , with 660,000 entries in it of KNOWN bad malscripted sites &amp;/or botnet command &amp; control servers ?
It keeps me safe , but is SLOWER using the longer IP addresses , per line.E.G.- &gt; 127.0.0.1 makes my HOSTS file bloat to 22 + + mb in size... using the next least inefficient entry of 0.0.0.0 makes it 18 + + mb in size !
Using 0 , by way of comparison ?
ONLY 14mb in size... a 30 \ % improvement ! The physics of this 'back me up ' , &amp; I would like to know if you have enough " PULL " to mention this to the team that handles the IP stack ! Thanks ! APKP.S. = &gt; You may also wish to read that blog there , because I noted even more here ( rootkit.com is a site where 'hacker/cracker ' types &amp; researchers " hang out " , &amp; they said THIS about your new single part " WFP " base filtering engine for protection ( no longer uses RDR20.DLL which Windows 2000 uses as a LSP , but it does use the same one XP/Server 2003 does for an LSP ) but , if you want more details on this &amp; why it 's " worse " possibly , per rootkit.com ? http : //www.rootkit.com/newsread.php ? newsid = 952PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE : " BTW , the firewalls based on NDIS v6 , which was introduced in Windows Vista , are much easier to unhook and bypass .
" That was a DIRECT QUOTE from said URL I just posted from rootkit.com ...Read more at the IBM site for details &amp; DO please get back to us , or me , @ apk4776239 @ hotmail.comhttp : //software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2008/12/02/engineering-windows-7-2/Thanks , because I would just like to know a SOLID technical reason WHY THIS WAS DONE !
That 's all , &amp; IF you read this ?
I wager you too will be CURIOUS why your IP team has ruined efficiency !
Please , on this last note ?
DO READ WHAT I WROTE AT IBM , for more detail &amp; WHY this " single part " ( actually dual part , because only ipfltdrv.sys is gone now , vs. ipsec.sys + ipnat.sys in Windows 7 , VISTA .
&amp; Server 2008 vs. previous models of Windows NT based OS like 2000/XP/Server2003 ) is worse , &amp; not on HOSTS files , but , because the " malware makers " can take advantage of it ( &amp; they have CODE FOR IT , right there too ) ... thanks ! By the by - I am LOVING Windows 7 64-bit , but I 'd like to see patches to these 2 issues &amp; you ARE the man to talk to here , or , @ least get a SOLID logical tech answer as to WHY THESE 2 THINGS WERE DONE ( they do n't help Windows , they HARM it ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows" - by Foredecker (161844) * on Sunday October 25, @04:03PM (#29866759) Homepage Journal GOOD: Then, you're JUST THE MAN I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF!I say that, because nobody answered me on it here (your companies' own "Engineering Windows 7" blog no less):----Welcome to our blog dedicated to the engineering of Microsoft Windows 7http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx----QUESTION:Why was the ability to use 0 as a "blocking IP address" removed from HOSTS files, from 12/09/2008 onwards, in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 it is this way also!
(&amp; it IS completely legit to use 0, &amp; faster + MORE EFFICIENT - Windows 2000, pre Service Pack #4 couldn't use it, but from then on it could, &amp; Windows XP + Server 2003 always could, so, that is PROOF you guys added it in, &amp; are now pulling it... why? Doing so, affects effciency of it adversely... read on!
)First of all, on "legit IP address" using 0 - because when you ping a "zero blocked" site you get back 0.0.0.0 on Windows 2000/XP/Serer 2003.Secondly, using that in a HOSTS file to protect one's self from KNOWN 'bad sites &amp;/or botnet command &amp; control servers for instance, you cannot get to them (&amp; thus you are safe from them via this practice)Third &amp; MOST importantly?When you perform the File I/O Open/Read/Close cycle on a LARGE HOSTS file (with these types of entries for protection)?
Loading said file is FAR faster... have your coders try this themselves, by loading a large HOSTS files into a listbox &amp; timing it using multimedia hi-resolution timers you register with the system.It's inefficient to use 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter" address, because it IS larger by 8 bytes per line &amp; does do a "loopback operation", which 0 &amp;/.or 0.0.0.0 do not).Also, "technically speaking"?
Well, the DNS cache perform a DECIMAL to HEXADECIMAL conversion on 0.0.0.0, and on 127.0.0.1... &amp; 0?
It doesn't NEED THAT, period.
(because 0-9 in decimal are 0-9 in hex too).That's also more efficient by using 0... period!But, the most important part is, that the SMALLER THE FILE IS, the faster it loads from DISK into RAM, period.
Using 0 makes it smaller, per line during reads (until the trailer record cr+lf or null is hit, then next line is read), &amp; thus faster, per line.In a HOSTS like I use, with 660,000 entries in it of KNOWN bad malscripted sites &amp;/or botnet command &amp; control servers?
It keeps me safe, but is SLOWER using the longer IP addresses, per line.E.G.-&gt; 127.0.0.1 makes my HOSTS file bloat to 22++mb in size... using the next least inefficient entry of 0.0.0.0 makes it 18++mb in size!
Using 0, by way of comparison?
ONLY 14mb in size... a 30\% improvement!The physics of this 'back me up', &amp; I would like to know if you have enough "PULL" to mention this to the team that handles the IP stack!Thanks!APKP.S.=&gt; You may also wish to read that blog there, because I noted even more here (rootkit.com is a site where 'hacker/cracker' types &amp; researchers "hang out", &amp; they said THIS about your new single part "WFP" base filtering engine for protection (no longer uses RDR20.DLL which Windows 2000 uses as a LSP, but it does use the same one XP/Server 2003 does for an LSP) but, if you want more details on this &amp; why it's "worse" possibly, per rootkit.com?http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass.
"That was a DIRECT QUOTE from said URL I just posted from rootkit.com ...Read more at the IBM site for details &amp; DO please get back to us, or me, @ apk4776239@hotmail.comhttp://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2008/12/02/engineering-windows-7-2/Thanks, because I would just like to know a SOLID technical reason WHY THIS WAS DONE!
That's all, &amp; IF you read this?
I wager you too will be CURIOUS why your IP team has ruined efficiency!
Please, on this last note?
DO READ WHAT I WROTE AT IBM, for more detail &amp; WHY this "single part" (actually dual part, because only ipfltdrv.sys is gone now, vs. ipsec.sys + ipnat.sys in Windows 7, VISTA.
&amp; Server 2008 vs. previous models of Windows NT based OS like 2000/XP/Server2003) is worse, &amp; not on HOSTS files, but, because the "malware makers" can take advantage of it (&amp; they have CODE FOR IT, right there too)... thanks!By the by - I am LOVING Windows 7 64-bit, but I'd like to see patches to these 2 issues &amp; you ARE the man to talk to here, or, @ least get a SOLID logical tech answer as to WHY THESE 2 THINGS WERE DONE (they don't help Windows, they HARM it)... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867341</id>
	<title>Re:'Surprise'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256467980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"</p><p>Just store it somewhere else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass " Just store it somewhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"Just store it somewhere else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29885621</id>
	<title>Answer this, Mr. Microsoft Manager, quit running</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256666520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After I read ALL of this + the "adhominem" attacks I suspect YOU used vs. myself (only to YOUR own dismay - you aren't intelligent enough to even BEGIN to try to 'take me on' in this area, &amp; you're obviously unarmed as well on this topic, what with your 'fantasy land' DB filesystem that doesn't exist, vs. the reality EVERYONE has a HOSTS file that's easily edited via notepad.exe &amp; good valid ones are around online like mvps.org for better speed AND SAFETY onlnie)?</p><p>Well - since you complain (which fools no one) that you cannot READ or UNDERSTAND my points (old stale troll trick that)?</p><p>I am going to enumerate my points, short &amp; sweet (albeit minus a good deal of detail, but most mgt. doesn't understand details where the "devils" are) to "ForeDecker" a mgr. @ MS:</p><p><b>BOTTOM-LINE, to FOREDECKER (an MS mgr.):</b></p><p>----</p><p><b>1.) TELL US WHY ROOTKIT.COM SAID THIS BELOW</b> (who published code that shows how to EASILY "unhook" the new NDIS6 firewall in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 no less) &amp; why they said this:</p><p><a href="http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952" title="rootkit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952</a> [rootkit.com]</p><p>PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:</p><p>"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."</p><p>&amp;</p><p><b>2.) Give us a SOLID answer to why 0 was removed in HOSTS then</b>, because it:</p><p>a. 127.0.0.1 or even 0.0.0.0 HOSTS files only, makes for larger slower HOSTS file loads into memory (be that the local DNS client, or diskcache even) &amp; hosts speed you up online (by blocking adbanners which have been shown to harbor malware, or isn't this indicative of that -&gt; Anti-malvertising.com? ) and, by allowing one to hardcode in one's favorites to avoid potentially compromised DNS servers (ala Dan Kaminsky proof thereof!</p><p>b. HOSTS also make you SAFER online, no CPU or RAM + other forms of I/O burning use needed (as in more complicated filter like iptables in Linux for example, no cpu burned there, just more complex than editing a text file like HOSTS) or a potential compromiseable DNS server that uses RAM, CPU, &amp; other I/O. Block out known bad servers (easily found from Dancho Danchev of ZDNet, stopbadware.org, or even Spybot Search &amp; Destroy)? YOU CANNOT BE BURNED, &amp; a hosts file is on EVERY SYSTEM THAT USES A TCP/IP stack based on BSD ref. designs (not some fantasy land db that doesn't exist, but, instead in a HOSTS file you have already that is easily edited or downloaded from places like mvps.org or here -&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file</a> [wikipedia.org] )</p><p>----</p><p>Well, @ this point? Unfortunately, I suspect this IS "foredecker" responding as "A/C" &amp; he is caught with his pants down, as most mgt. is, &amp; all they say is "I don't understand or I could not read it" instead of coming clean &amp; owning up to it, then learning more (they are not about learning, they are about scamming imo, having been one in my past &amp; knowning i needed to know more so I went back for CSC degrees ontop of my MIS ones, which were on info. systems basically, NOT how this stuff REALLY works @ the lowest levels as CSC degree tracks DO show you + the theories behind them).</p><p>So, I would just like to KNOW WHY as to WHY the more efficient on diskspace &amp; faster loading into RAM 0 based HOSTS file was removed in Microsoft VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 - there really MAY be a GOOD REASON, but everyone @ MS is avoiding it... this reeks of something BAD, imo, almost like a 'cover up'. Sounds nuts, but a straight answer like "here is the trade off we made" or "yes, we screwed up - expect a patch" would be FAR better. Own up to a fuckup, or just say "You have a point, expect a patch"</p><p>This was intentional, but, on WHAT GROUNDS? That's all I wish to know here.</p><p>This happened, again, after 12/09/2009 patch Tuesday, &amp; onwards in Windows Server 2008 + Windows 7.</p><p>I just asked for a VALID technical reason WHY this was done (especially after it was added to the reference TCP/IP design, altering it, by Microsoft &amp; for ONCE, for a GOOD PERFORMANCE ORIENTED REASON, instead of intentional bloat to sell more INTEL CPU's by eating more power by being less efficient)...</p><p>It was NOT in the OEM original Windows 2000... it was added, but, ONLY after Windows 2000 was patched, because it's original OEM pre service pack version did not have that, it was added (&amp; SOMEONE knew it was a "good thing", or else, why add it?).</p><p>So, why was it pulled now?</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; You can argue with the numbers, &amp; facts, all you wish to, &amp; go 'off topic' + try the "english grammar critique" off-topic stupid trick mgt. &amp; trolls usually do, but it fools no one.</p><p>Also - You can call me names &amp; attack me first, albeit to your OWN dismay (in your giving away your own weaknesses/inadequacies, no less, because you don't know me, Foredecker - but, NOW YOU DO (&amp; so does Dr. Mark Russinovich whom I caught in "rookie" hardcodes in his work &amp; told him HOW &amp; WHY to correct it no less &amp; he thanked me for it))</p><p>To your "ad-hominem attacks"? LOL... I will only send it back your way, tit for tat/reverse psychology-wise, &amp; burn you in the process... easily. Just as I have. You are offtopic on your 'english grammar critiques' &amp; this is not an English class either - but, show me your PHD in English? I just *MIGHT* listen then, but only maybe. This is ALL you have now, along with "mod downs" which are effete &amp; transparent 'retaliation', &amp; quite obvious + hilarious.</p><p>Avoiding my valid points &amp; questions only makes you look the fool, Foredecker (&amp; I suspect you are he albeit posting as AC now only).</p><p>Your "trolling me" &amp; your use of ad-hominem attempts @ attacking me only makes you look the fool moreso (especially whenI burn you obviously showing you DO understand my points &amp; can read them, because you replied to them, &amp; many DEEP in my posts no less).</p><p><b>AGAIN - reiterating it for the illiterate/dylexic:  BOTTOM-LINE, to FOREDECKER (an MS mgr.):</b></p><p>----</p><p><b>1.) TELL US WHY ROOTKIT.COM SAID THIS BELOW</b> (who published code that shows how to EASILY "unhook" the new NDIS6 firewall in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 no less) &amp; why they said this:</p><p><a href="http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952" title="rootkit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952</a> [rootkit.com]</p><p>PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:</p><p>"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."</p><p>&amp;</p><p><b>2.) Give us a SOLID answer to why 0 was removed in HOSTS then</b>, because it:</p><p>a. 127.0.0.1 or even 0.0.0.0 HOSTS files only, makes for larger slower HOSTS file loads into memory (be that the local DNS client, or diskcache even) &amp; hosts speed you up online (by blocking adbanners which have been shown to harbor malware, or isn't this indicative of that -&gt; Anti-malvertising.com? ) and, by allowing one to hardcode in one's favorites to avoid potentially compromised DNS servers (ala Dan Kaminsky proof thereof!</p><p>b. HOSTS also make you SAFER online, no CPU or RAM + other forms of I/O burning use needed (as in more complicated filter like iptables in Linux for example, no cpu burned there, just more complex than editing a text file like HOSTS) or a potential compromiseable DNS server that uses RAM, CPU, &amp; other I/O. Block out known bad servers (easily found from Dancho Danchev of ZDNet, stopbadware.org, or even Spybot Search &amp; Destroy)? YOU CANNOT BE BURNED, &amp; a hosts file is on EVERY SYSTEM THAT USES A TCP/IP stack based on BSD ref. designs (not some fantasy land db that doesn't exist, but, instead in a HOSTS file you have already that is easily edited or downloaded from places like mvps.org or here -&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file</a> [wikipedia.org] )</p><p>----</p><p>Do that, won't you?</p><p>Please - that's better, instead of your 'deer in the headlights' replies.</p><p>SO - Do what a mgr. does, &amp; what I said - run this by the MS TCP/IP team, &amp; find out (after all, it's "what mgt. does" usually, because they don't know enough otherwise from their 10,000 foot view above "the devils in the details" (most mgt. that is, I am out to be a BETTER one in a short period per dual degrees in this science + 15++ yrs. of experience in the trenches from coding, to networking, to tech work too)... m'kay?)</p><p>If you are indicate of MS' mgt.? No small wonder VISTA "flopped"... period!</p><p>apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After I read ALL of this + the " adhominem " attacks I suspect YOU used vs. myself ( only to YOUR own dismay - you are n't intelligent enough to even BEGIN to try to 'take me on ' in this area , &amp; you 're obviously unarmed as well on this topic , what with your 'fantasy land ' DB filesystem that does n't exist , vs. the reality EVERYONE has a HOSTS file that 's easily edited via notepad.exe &amp; good valid ones are around online like mvps.org for better speed AND SAFETY onlnie ) ? Well - since you complain ( which fools no one ) that you can not READ or UNDERSTAND my points ( old stale troll trick that ) ? I am going to enumerate my points , short &amp; sweet ( albeit minus a good deal of detail , but most mgt .
does n't understand details where the " devils " are ) to " ForeDecker " a mgr .
@ MS : BOTTOM-LINE , to FOREDECKER ( an MS mgr. ) : ----1 .
) TELL US WHY ROOTKIT.COM SAID THIS BELOW ( who published code that shows how to EASILY " unhook " the new NDIS6 firewall in VISTA , Windows Server 2008 , &amp; Windows 7 no less ) &amp; why they said this : http : //www.rootkit.com/newsread.php ? newsid = 952 [ rootkit.com ] PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE : " BTW , the firewalls based on NDIS v6 , which was introduced in Windows Vista , are much easier to unhook and bypass. " &amp;2 .
) Give us a SOLID answer to why 0 was removed in HOSTS then , because it : a .
127.0.0.1 or even 0.0.0.0 HOSTS files only , makes for larger slower HOSTS file loads into memory ( be that the local DNS client , or diskcache even ) &amp; hosts speed you up online ( by blocking adbanners which have been shown to harbor malware , or is n't this indicative of that - &gt; Anti-malvertising.com ?
) and , by allowing one to hardcode in one 's favorites to avoid potentially compromised DNS servers ( ala Dan Kaminsky proof thereof ! b .
HOSTS also make you SAFER online , no CPU or RAM + other forms of I/O burning use needed ( as in more complicated filter like iptables in Linux for example , no cpu burned there , just more complex than editing a text file like HOSTS ) or a potential compromiseable DNS server that uses RAM , CPU , &amp; other I/O .
Block out known bad servers ( easily found from Dancho Danchev of ZDNet , stopbadware.org , or even Spybot Search &amp; Destroy ) ?
YOU CAN NOT BE BURNED , &amp; a hosts file is on EVERY SYSTEM THAT USES A TCP/IP stack based on BSD ref .
designs ( not some fantasy land db that does n't exist , but , instead in a HOSTS file you have already that is easily edited or downloaded from places like mvps.org or here - &gt; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts \ _file [ wikipedia.org ] ) ----Well , @ this point ?
Unfortunately , I suspect this IS " foredecker " responding as " A/C " &amp; he is caught with his pants down , as most mgt .
is , &amp; all they say is " I do n't understand or I could not read it " instead of coming clean &amp; owning up to it , then learning more ( they are not about learning , they are about scamming imo , having been one in my past &amp; knowning i needed to know more so I went back for CSC degrees ontop of my MIS ones , which were on info .
systems basically , NOT how this stuff REALLY works @ the lowest levels as CSC degree tracks DO show you + the theories behind them ) .So , I would just like to KNOW WHY as to WHY the more efficient on diskspace &amp; faster loading into RAM 0 based HOSTS file was removed in Microsoft VISTA , Windows Server 2008 , &amp; Windows 7 - there really MAY be a GOOD REASON , but everyone @ MS is avoiding it... this reeks of something BAD , imo , almost like a 'cover up' .
Sounds nuts , but a straight answer like " here is the trade off we made " or " yes , we screwed up - expect a patch " would be FAR better .
Own up to a fuckup , or just say " You have a point , expect a patch " This was intentional , but , on WHAT GROUNDS ?
That 's all I wish to know here.This happened , again , after 12/09/2009 patch Tuesday , &amp; onwards in Windows Server 2008 + Windows 7.I just asked for a VALID technical reason WHY this was done ( especially after it was added to the reference TCP/IP design , altering it , by Microsoft &amp; for ONCE , for a GOOD PERFORMANCE ORIENTED REASON , instead of intentional bloat to sell more INTEL CPU 's by eating more power by being less efficient ) ...It was NOT in the OEM original Windows 2000... it was added , but , ONLY after Windows 2000 was patched , because it 's original OEM pre service pack version did not have that , it was added ( &amp; SOMEONE knew it was a " good thing " , or else , why add it ?
) .So , why was it pulled now ? APKP.S. = &gt; You can argue with the numbers , &amp; facts , all you wish to , &amp; go 'off topic ' + try the " english grammar critique " off-topic stupid trick mgt .
&amp; trolls usually do , but it fools no one.Also - You can call me names &amp; attack me first , albeit to your OWN dismay ( in your giving away your own weaknesses/inadequacies , no less , because you do n't know me , Foredecker - but , NOW YOU DO ( &amp; so does Dr. Mark Russinovich whom I caught in " rookie " hardcodes in his work &amp; told him HOW &amp; WHY to correct it no less &amp; he thanked me for it ) ) To your " ad-hominem attacks " ?
LOL... I will only send it back your way , tit for tat/reverse psychology-wise , &amp; burn you in the process... easily. Just as I have .
You are offtopic on your 'english grammar critiques ' &amp; this is not an English class either - but , show me your PHD in English ?
I just * MIGHT * listen then , but only maybe .
This is ALL you have now , along with " mod downs " which are effete &amp; transparent 'retaliation ' , &amp; quite obvious + hilarious.Avoiding my valid points &amp; questions only makes you look the fool , Foredecker ( &amp; I suspect you are he albeit posting as AC now only ) .Your " trolling me " &amp; your use of ad-hominem attempts @ attacking me only makes you look the fool moreso ( especially whenI burn you obviously showing you DO understand my points &amp; can read them , because you replied to them , &amp; many DEEP in my posts no less ) .AGAIN - reiterating it for the illiterate/dylexic : BOTTOM-LINE , to FOREDECKER ( an MS mgr. ) : ----1 .
) TELL US WHY ROOTKIT.COM SAID THIS BELOW ( who published code that shows how to EASILY " unhook " the new NDIS6 firewall in VISTA , Windows Server 2008 , &amp; Windows 7 no less ) &amp; why they said this : http : //www.rootkit.com/newsread.php ? newsid = 952 [ rootkit.com ] PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE : " BTW , the firewalls based on NDIS v6 , which was introduced in Windows Vista , are much easier to unhook and bypass. " &amp;2 .
) Give us a SOLID answer to why 0 was removed in HOSTS then , because it : a .
127.0.0.1 or even 0.0.0.0 HOSTS files only , makes for larger slower HOSTS file loads into memory ( be that the local DNS client , or diskcache even ) &amp; hosts speed you up online ( by blocking adbanners which have been shown to harbor malware , or is n't this indicative of that - &gt; Anti-malvertising.com ?
) and , by allowing one to hardcode in one 's favorites to avoid potentially compromised DNS servers ( ala Dan Kaminsky proof thereof ! b .
HOSTS also make you SAFER online , no CPU or RAM + other forms of I/O burning use needed ( as in more complicated filter like iptables in Linux for example , no cpu burned there , just more complex than editing a text file like HOSTS ) or a potential compromiseable DNS server that uses RAM , CPU , &amp; other I/O .
Block out known bad servers ( easily found from Dancho Danchev of ZDNet , stopbadware.org , or even Spybot Search &amp; Destroy ) ?
YOU CAN NOT BE BURNED , &amp; a hosts file is on EVERY SYSTEM THAT USES A TCP/IP stack based on BSD ref .
designs ( not some fantasy land db that does n't exist , but , instead in a HOSTS file you have already that is easily edited or downloaded from places like mvps.org or here - &gt; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts \ _file [ wikipedia.org ] ) ----Do that , wo n't you ? Please - that 's better , instead of your 'deer in the headlights ' replies.SO - Do what a mgr .
does , &amp; what I said - run this by the MS TCP/IP team , &amp; find out ( after all , it 's " what mgt .
does " usually , because they do n't know enough otherwise from their 10,000 foot view above " the devils in the details " ( most mgt .
that is , I am out to be a BETTER one in a short period per dual degrees in this science + 15 + + yrs .
of experience in the trenches from coding , to networking , to tech work too ) .. .
m'kay ? ) If you are indicate of MS ' mgt. ?
No small wonder VISTA " flopped " ... period ! apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After I read ALL of this + the "adhominem" attacks I suspect YOU used vs. myself (only to YOUR own dismay - you aren't intelligent enough to even BEGIN to try to 'take me on' in this area, &amp; you're obviously unarmed as well on this topic, what with your 'fantasy land' DB filesystem that doesn't exist, vs. the reality EVERYONE has a HOSTS file that's easily edited via notepad.exe &amp; good valid ones are around online like mvps.org for better speed AND SAFETY onlnie)?Well - since you complain (which fools no one) that you cannot READ or UNDERSTAND my points (old stale troll trick that)?I am going to enumerate my points, short &amp; sweet (albeit minus a good deal of detail, but most mgt.
doesn't understand details where the "devils" are) to "ForeDecker" a mgr.
@ MS:BOTTOM-LINE, to FOREDECKER (an MS mgr.):----1.
) TELL US WHY ROOTKIT.COM SAID THIS BELOW (who published code that shows how to EASILY "unhook" the new NDIS6 firewall in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 no less) &amp; why they said this:http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952 [rootkit.com]PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."&amp;2.
) Give us a SOLID answer to why 0 was removed in HOSTS then, because it:a.
127.0.0.1 or even 0.0.0.0 HOSTS files only, makes for larger slower HOSTS file loads into memory (be that the local DNS client, or diskcache even) &amp; hosts speed you up online (by blocking adbanners which have been shown to harbor malware, or isn't this indicative of that -&gt; Anti-malvertising.com?
) and, by allowing one to hardcode in one's favorites to avoid potentially compromised DNS servers (ala Dan Kaminsky proof thereof!b.
HOSTS also make you SAFER online, no CPU or RAM + other forms of I/O burning use needed (as in more complicated filter like iptables in Linux for example, no cpu burned there, just more complex than editing a text file like HOSTS) or a potential compromiseable DNS server that uses RAM, CPU, &amp; other I/O.
Block out known bad servers (easily found from Dancho Danchev of ZDNet, stopbadware.org, or even Spybot Search &amp; Destroy)?
YOU CANNOT BE BURNED, &amp; a hosts file is on EVERY SYSTEM THAT USES A TCP/IP stack based on BSD ref.
designs (not some fantasy land db that doesn't exist, but, instead in a HOSTS file you have already that is easily edited or downloaded from places like mvps.org or here -&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file [wikipedia.org] )----Well, @ this point?
Unfortunately, I suspect this IS "foredecker" responding as "A/C" &amp; he is caught with his pants down, as most mgt.
is, &amp; all they say is "I don't understand or I could not read it" instead of coming clean &amp; owning up to it, then learning more (they are not about learning, they are about scamming imo, having been one in my past &amp; knowning i needed to know more so I went back for CSC degrees ontop of my MIS ones, which were on info.
systems basically, NOT how this stuff REALLY works @ the lowest levels as CSC degree tracks DO show you + the theories behind them).So, I would just like to KNOW WHY as to WHY the more efficient on diskspace &amp; faster loading into RAM 0 based HOSTS file was removed in Microsoft VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 - there really MAY be a GOOD REASON, but everyone @ MS is avoiding it... this reeks of something BAD, imo, almost like a 'cover up'.
Sounds nuts, but a straight answer like "here is the trade off we made" or "yes, we screwed up - expect a patch" would be FAR better.
Own up to a fuckup, or just say "You have a point, expect a patch"This was intentional, but, on WHAT GROUNDS?
That's all I wish to know here.This happened, again, after 12/09/2009 patch Tuesday, &amp; onwards in Windows Server 2008 + Windows 7.I just asked for a VALID technical reason WHY this was done (especially after it was added to the reference TCP/IP design, altering it, by Microsoft &amp; for ONCE, for a GOOD PERFORMANCE ORIENTED REASON, instead of intentional bloat to sell more INTEL CPU's by eating more power by being less efficient)...It was NOT in the OEM original Windows 2000... it was added, but, ONLY after Windows 2000 was patched, because it's original OEM pre service pack version did not have that, it was added (&amp; SOMEONE knew it was a "good thing", or else, why add it?
).So, why was it pulled now?APKP.S.=&gt; You can argue with the numbers, &amp; facts, all you wish to, &amp; go 'off topic' + try the "english grammar critique" off-topic stupid trick mgt.
&amp; trolls usually do, but it fools no one.Also - You can call me names &amp; attack me first, albeit to your OWN dismay (in your giving away your own weaknesses/inadequacies, no less, because you don't know me, Foredecker - but, NOW YOU DO (&amp; so does Dr. Mark Russinovich whom I caught in "rookie" hardcodes in his work &amp; told him HOW &amp; WHY to correct it no less &amp; he thanked me for it))To your "ad-hominem attacks"?
LOL... I will only send it back your way, tit for tat/reverse psychology-wise, &amp; burn you in the process... easily. Just as I have.
You are offtopic on your 'english grammar critiques' &amp; this is not an English class either - but, show me your PHD in English?
I just *MIGHT* listen then, but only maybe.
This is ALL you have now, along with "mod downs" which are effete &amp; transparent 'retaliation', &amp; quite obvious + hilarious.Avoiding my valid points &amp; questions only makes you look the fool, Foredecker (&amp; I suspect you are he albeit posting as AC now only).Your "trolling me" &amp; your use of ad-hominem attempts @ attacking me only makes you look the fool moreso (especially whenI burn you obviously showing you DO understand my points &amp; can read them, because you replied to them, &amp; many DEEP in my posts no less).AGAIN - reiterating it for the illiterate/dylexic:  BOTTOM-LINE, to FOREDECKER (an MS mgr.):----1.
) TELL US WHY ROOTKIT.COM SAID THIS BELOW (who published code that shows how to EASILY "unhook" the new NDIS6 firewall in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 no less) &amp; why they said this:http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952 [rootkit.com]PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."&amp;2.
) Give us a SOLID answer to why 0 was removed in HOSTS then, because it:a.
127.0.0.1 or even 0.0.0.0 HOSTS files only, makes for larger slower HOSTS file loads into memory (be that the local DNS client, or diskcache even) &amp; hosts speed you up online (by blocking adbanners which have been shown to harbor malware, or isn't this indicative of that -&gt; Anti-malvertising.com?
) and, by allowing one to hardcode in one's favorites to avoid potentially compromised DNS servers (ala Dan Kaminsky proof thereof!b.
HOSTS also make you SAFER online, no CPU or RAM + other forms of I/O burning use needed (as in more complicated filter like iptables in Linux for example, no cpu burned there, just more complex than editing a text file like HOSTS) or a potential compromiseable DNS server that uses RAM, CPU, &amp; other I/O.
Block out known bad servers (easily found from Dancho Danchev of ZDNet, stopbadware.org, or even Spybot Search &amp; Destroy)?
YOU CANNOT BE BURNED, &amp; a hosts file is on EVERY SYSTEM THAT USES A TCP/IP stack based on BSD ref.
designs (not some fantasy land db that doesn't exist, but, instead in a HOSTS file you have already that is easily edited or downloaded from places like mvps.org or here -&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file [wikipedia.org] )----Do that, won't you?Please - that's better, instead of your 'deer in the headlights' replies.SO - Do what a mgr.
does, &amp; what I said - run this by the MS TCP/IP team, &amp; find out (after all, it's "what mgt.
does" usually, because they don't know enough otherwise from their 10,000 foot view above "the devils in the details" (most mgt.
that is, I am out to be a BETTER one in a short period per dual degrees in this science + 15++ yrs.
of experience in the trenches from coding, to networking, to tech work too)...
m'kay?)If you are indicate of MS' mgt.?
No small wonder VISTA "flopped"... period!apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867131</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, THOSE leaks</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1256465160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It took me a few minutes to realize that we were't talking about memory leaks.</p></div><p>You're not alone.  I blame the editor.  Software can *be* leaked (dispersed before official release), but software doesn't leak by itself except as memory leaks (and maybe software that controls hydroelectric dams or sprinkler systems).  The title should be "When Software is Leaked", but it's not as "actiony" sounding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It took me a few minutes to realize that we were't talking about memory leaks.You 're not alone .
I blame the editor .
Software can * be * leaked ( dispersed before official release ) , but software does n't leak by itself except as memory leaks ( and maybe software that controls hydroelectric dams or sprinkler systems ) .
The title should be " When Software is Leaked " , but it 's not as " actiony " sounding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took me a few minutes to realize that we were't talking about memory leaks.You're not alone.
I blame the editor.
Software can *be* leaked (dispersed before official release), but software doesn't leak by itself except as memory leaks (and maybe software that controls hydroelectric dams or sprinkler systems).
The title should be "When Software is Leaked", but it's not as "actiony" sounding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867331</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1256467860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like, totally....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , totally... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, totally....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869553</id>
	<title>reasonable comments</title>
	<author>Slashed Dot</author>
	<datestamp>1256498700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know, i really found this article to be educational also, because i've seen it before where someone will post a leak of some sort, a leaked build, or leaked screen shots, something leaked, and they will say 'wow look it's so rough man this will be the worst most horrible experience ever' or 'look they cut this essential feature out it will be horrible' or 'look how sloppy everything is!'. from what i read of this dev's statements, he sounds like me when i'm working on anything, from my car to my computer. if an outsider peeked in and looked at it all while i'm in the middle it may look really sloppy. dirt all over, parts strew right and left, half of it doesn't even work, and i myself am just sloppy and dirty. dust on my nose, smudges on my glasses, grease on my hands. it really presents the idea that i am just a slob and also that the finished product will be horribly broken.</p><p>of course, that is the not the case. i just need to get dirty and make a mess to get anywhere sometimes. i may wind up taking whole sections of my computer or car out and botching something together just to test something. it doesn't look good at all, but it's just part of the process. when i'm done, it will be functional. it will work. it will in fact even look nice, but i have my process to work in and if you step into that while i'm busy and you don't know what is going on in my head, you won't be impressed.</p><p>so please, save the hating on this dev for someone else. i'm glad he said something. it helps put these negative reviews of various Windows leaked builds (or WIP builds of anything really) in perspective. important things to realise i figure.</p><p>thanks, anonymous dev.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know , i really found this article to be educational also , because i 've seen it before where someone will post a leak of some sort , a leaked build , or leaked screen shots , something leaked , and they will say 'wow look it 's so rough man this will be the worst most horrible experience ever ' or 'look they cut this essential feature out it will be horrible ' or 'look how sloppy everything is ! ' .
from what i read of this dev 's statements , he sounds like me when i 'm working on anything , from my car to my computer .
if an outsider peeked in and looked at it all while i 'm in the middle it may look really sloppy .
dirt all over , parts strew right and left , half of it does n't even work , and i myself am just sloppy and dirty .
dust on my nose , smudges on my glasses , grease on my hands .
it really presents the idea that i am just a slob and also that the finished product will be horribly broken.of course , that is the not the case .
i just need to get dirty and make a mess to get anywhere sometimes .
i may wind up taking whole sections of my computer or car out and botching something together just to test something .
it does n't look good at all , but it 's just part of the process .
when i 'm done , it will be functional .
it will work .
it will in fact even look nice , but i have my process to work in and if you step into that while i 'm busy and you do n't know what is going on in my head , you wo n't be impressed.so please , save the hating on this dev for someone else .
i 'm glad he said something .
it helps put these negative reviews of various Windows leaked builds ( or WIP builds of anything really ) in perspective .
important things to realise i figure.thanks , anonymous dev .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know, i really found this article to be educational also, because i've seen it before where someone will post a leak of some sort, a leaked build, or leaked screen shots, something leaked, and they will say 'wow look it's so rough man this will be the worst most horrible experience ever' or 'look they cut this essential feature out it will be horrible' or 'look how sloppy everything is!'.
from what i read of this dev's statements, he sounds like me when i'm working on anything, from my car to my computer.
if an outsider peeked in and looked at it all while i'm in the middle it may look really sloppy.
dirt all over, parts strew right and left, half of it doesn't even work, and i myself am just sloppy and dirty.
dust on my nose, smudges on my glasses, grease on my hands.
it really presents the idea that i am just a slob and also that the finished product will be horribly broken.of course, that is the not the case.
i just need to get dirty and make a mess to get anywhere sometimes.
i may wind up taking whole sections of my computer or car out and botching something together just to test something.
it doesn't look good at all, but it's just part of the process.
when i'm done, it will be functional.
it will work.
it will in fact even look nice, but i have my process to work in and if you step into that while i'm busy and you don't know what is going on in my head, you won't be impressed.so please, save the hating on this dev for someone else.
i'm glad he said something.
it helps put these negative reviews of various Windows leaked builds (or WIP builds of anything really) in perspective.
important things to realise i figure.thanks, anonymous dev.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866563</id>
	<title>Calling jcr. How was this handled at Apple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256502840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John C. Randolph, how were leaks handled at Apple?</p><p>Does their method of handling leaks reflect the vastly different culture at Apple versus, say, Microsoft, Oracle and IBM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John C. Randolph , how were leaks handled at Apple ? Does their method of handling leaks reflect the vastly different culture at Apple versus , say , Microsoft , Oracle and IBM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John C. Randolph, how were leaks handled at Apple?Does their method of handling leaks reflect the vastly different culture at Apple versus, say, Microsoft, Oracle and IBM?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869057</id>
	<title>So Vista must have been a leak...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256491740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and a radioactive one at it too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and a radioactive one at it too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and a radioactive one at it too...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867145</id>
	<title>Old news - leaking Windows since 1983</title>
	<author>linebackn</author>
	<datestamp>1256465280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like Microsoft's "leaks" are anything new. I have even found references on old archived newsgroups to people discussing pre-release Windows 1.0 as early as late 1983 (although perhaps not "leaked" if they were meant to have it). Late 1983 was when Microsoft was promoting this vapor-ware product in magazines such as Byte in order to upstage the now forgotten VisiCorp Visi On and this little product about to be announced from Apple called the Macintosh. Of course it was not officially release until 1985. There is even a late 1984 pre-release still floating around.</p><p>Microsoft wants people to get their hands on their software. They make it available to developers, testers, and reviewers. And if they wave their hand to others and say "ah-ah-ah you aren't allowed to have that" then people start drooling over this tempting forbidden software rather than seeing it as just another pile of bits. It is an inexpensive way to produce publicity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like Microsoft 's " leaks " are anything new .
I have even found references on old archived newsgroups to people discussing pre-release Windows 1.0 as early as late 1983 ( although perhaps not " leaked " if they were meant to have it ) .
Late 1983 was when Microsoft was promoting this vapor-ware product in magazines such as Byte in order to upstage the now forgotten VisiCorp Visi On and this little product about to be announced from Apple called the Macintosh .
Of course it was not officially release until 1985 .
There is even a late 1984 pre-release still floating around.Microsoft wants people to get their hands on their software .
They make it available to developers , testers , and reviewers .
And if they wave their hand to others and say " ah-ah-ah you are n't allowed to have that " then people start drooling over this tempting forbidden software rather than seeing it as just another pile of bits .
It is an inexpensive way to produce publicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like Microsoft's "leaks" are anything new.
I have even found references on old archived newsgroups to people discussing pre-release Windows 1.0 as early as late 1983 (although perhaps not "leaked" if they were meant to have it).
Late 1983 was when Microsoft was promoting this vapor-ware product in magazines such as Byte in order to upstage the now forgotten VisiCorp Visi On and this little product about to be announced from Apple called the Macintosh.
Of course it was not officially release until 1985.
There is even a late 1984 pre-release still floating around.Microsoft wants people to get their hands on their software.
They make it available to developers, testers, and reviewers.
And if they wave their hand to others and say "ah-ah-ah you aren't allowed to have that" then people start drooling over this tempting forbidden software rather than seeing it as just another pile of bits.
It is an inexpensive way to produce publicity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585</id>
	<title>'Surprise'</title>
	<author>fridaynightsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1256503080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was the surprise the lack of surprises?</p><p>I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like. This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"</p><p>No real surprises there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was the surprise the lack of surprises ? I would summarise that interview as " When builds leak they might be incomplete or old , and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like .
This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass " No real surprises there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was the surprise the lack of surprises?I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like.
This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"No real surprises there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29870499</id>
	<title>MS Leaks Disambiguation</title>
	<author>speardane</author>
	<datestamp>1256554920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I misunderstood....<p>
I thought you were talking about "leaks" in products like Word (and other non-MS products) and XP "going down" - I find even with Word 2003 it was still safer to reboot every other weekend. Has this been fixed yet?</p><p>
for the me the rest is all variations in marketing technique...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I misunderstood... . I thought you were talking about " leaks " in products like Word ( and other non-MS products ) and XP " going down " - I find even with Word 2003 it was still safer to reboot every other weekend .
Has this been fixed yet ?
for the me the rest is all variations in marketing technique.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I misunderstood....
I thought you were talking about "leaks" in products like Word (and other non-MS products) and XP "going down" - I find even with Word 2003 it was still safer to reboot every other weekend.
Has this been fixed yet?
for the me the rest is all variations in marketing technique...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866711</id>
	<title>weird tag line</title>
	<author>cliffiecee</author>
	<datestamp>1256504160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The header says "Aeroexperience Blog: The forums are over there."</p><p>That's not very catchy, it seems like some sort of advisory note, as if Windows enthusiasts were so clueless that-</p><p>&lt;smug&gt;Ah, I get it now.&lt;/smug&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The header says " Aeroexperience Blog : The forums are over there .
" That 's not very catchy , it seems like some sort of advisory note , as if Windows enthusiasts were so clueless that-Ah , I get it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The header says "Aeroexperience Blog: The forums are over there.
"That's not very catchy, it seems like some sort of advisory note, as if Windows enthusiasts were so clueless that-Ah, I get it now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866651</id>
	<title>Oh, THOSE leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256503680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It took me a few minutes to realize that we were't talking about <b>memory</b> leaks.<br> <br>

I've been spending too much time with Valgrind lately...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It took me a few minutes to realize that we were't talking about memory leaks .
I 've been spending too much time with Valgrind lately.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took me a few minutes to realize that we were't talking about memory leaks.
I've been spending too much time with Valgrind lately...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867611</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>woolio</author>
	<datestamp>1256471700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like. This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"</b></p><p><b>No real surprises there.<br></b></p><p>Well I'm not surprised at all. He must actually like leaks, otherwise he wouldn't keep his phone shoved up his ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would summarise that interview as " When builds leak they might be incomplete or old , and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like .
This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass " No real surprises there.Well I 'm not surprised at all .
He must actually like leaks , otherwise he would n't keep his phone shoved up his ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like.
This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"No real surprises there.Well I'm not surprised at all.
He must actually like leaks, otherwise he wouldn't keep his phone shoved up his ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29870139</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1256550180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no Cabal^HSecret Leak Committee</p><p>Best Regards,<br>The Cabal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no Cabal ^ HSecret Leak CommitteeBest Regards,The Cabal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no Cabal^HSecret Leak CommitteeBest Regards,The Cabal</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29870805</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1256560380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To be able to kick the competitor's asses without actually having a product is pretty damned impressive in my book</p></div><p>In my book, this is cold and calculated, and doing business in the cut-throat way. I hate it, because it can kill fledgling entrepreneurs with good ideas but no steady cashflow.</p><p>I think it's totally unethical. But then again, I probably won't get rich.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be able to kick the competitor 's asses without actually having a product is pretty damned impressive in my bookIn my book , this is cold and calculated , and doing business in the cut-throat way .
I hate it , because it can kill fledgling entrepreneurs with good ideas but no steady cashflow.I think it 's totally unethical .
But then again , I probably wo n't get rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be able to kick the competitor's asses without actually having a product is pretty damned impressive in my bookIn my book, this is cold and calculated, and doing business in the cut-throat way.
I hate it, because it can kill fledgling entrepreneurs with good ideas but no steady cashflow.I think it's totally unethical.
But then again, I probably won't get rich.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256461380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows and no, they are not calculated or deliberate. There is no super secrete leak committee.  Leaks are a big hassle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows and no , they are not calculated or deliberate .
There is no super secrete leak committee .
Leaks are a big hassle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows and no, they are not calculated or deliberate.
There is no super secrete leak committee.
Leaks are a big hassle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867071</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1256464500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is no super secrete leak committee.</p></div></blockquote><p>See, this statement is logically flawed.</p><p>If you knew about it, and told us it existed, then it would not in fact be "secrete" and thus not exist.  Your absense of knowledge of this "super secrete" committee is similarly in no way prove of it's nonexistance.  Furthermore, if the the committee does in fact exist and you <i>are</i> aware of it, then you denying its existance would be expected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no super secrete leak committee.See , this statement is logically flawed.If you knew about it , and told us it existed , then it would not in fact be " secrete " and thus not exist .
Your absense of knowledge of this " super secrete " committee is similarly in no way prove of it 's nonexistance .
Furthermore , if the the committee does in fact exist and you are aware of it , then you denying its existance would be expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no super secrete leak committee.See, this statement is logically flawed.If you knew about it, and told us it existed, then it would not in fact be "secrete" and thus not exist.
Your absense of knowledge of this "super secrete" committee is similarly in no way prove of it's nonexistance.
Furthermore, if the the committee does in fact exist and you are aware of it, then you denying its existance would be expected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869041</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256491620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one expects the Secret Leak Committee!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one expects the Secret Leak Committee !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one expects the Secret Leak Committee!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866977</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256463540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never show a child or a fool a thing half-finished.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never show a child or a fool a thing half-finished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never show a child or a fool a thing half-finished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867143</id>
	<title>Side note</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256465280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as a web developer (and admittedly a Mac user, FWIW) - shouldn't a website named "AeroXperience" work a bit harder at having a halfway decent web site design? While I personally think the graphics are ugly, what really stands out is how the page doesn't scale - and it's not like there's some overarching design that requires the amount of page width the styles seem to be enforcing.</p><p>Aero is all about the visuals, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a web developer ( and admittedly a Mac user , FWIW ) - should n't a website named " AeroXperience " work a bit harder at having a halfway decent web site design ?
While I personally think the graphics are ugly , what really stands out is how the page does n't scale - and it 's not like there 's some overarching design that requires the amount of page width the styles seem to be enforcing.Aero is all about the visuals , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a web developer (and admittedly a Mac user, FWIW) - shouldn't a website named "AeroXperience" work a bit harder at having a halfway decent web site design?
While I personally think the graphics are ugly, what really stands out is how the page doesn't scale - and it's not like there's some overarching design that requires the amount of page width the styles seem to be enforcing.Aero is all about the visuals, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539</id>
	<title>I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256502660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the Microsoft leaks were a calculated way to build public interest in new products. But what do I know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Microsoft leaks were a calculated way to build public interest in new products .
But what do I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Microsoft leaks were a calculated way to build public interest in new products.
But what do I know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29877889</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1256553480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, what you know is the truth, that this guy is trying to obsfucate. Otherwise people like the examples listed would have been fined/sued/jailed (or some combination of 2 or more of the above) quite some time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , what you know is the truth , that this guy is trying to obsfucate .
Otherwise people like the examples listed would have been fined/sued/jailed ( or some combination of 2 or more of the above ) quite some time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, what you know is the truth, that this guy is trying to obsfucate.
Otherwise people like the examples listed would have been fined/sued/jailed (or some combination of 2 or more of the above) quite some time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866709</id>
	<title>Leak concern?</title>
	<author>cpattersonv1</author>
	<datestamp>1256504160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's odd that they would be concerned with the perception of quality in leaked software... Microsoft customers have come to expect the final release to be buggy anyhow.

The only people who are going to install the leaked software probably wouldn't buy the final build anyhow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's odd that they would be concerned with the perception of quality in leaked software... Microsoft customers have come to expect the final release to be buggy anyhow .
The only people who are going to install the leaked software probably would n't buy the final build anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's odd that they would be concerned with the perception of quality in leaked software... Microsoft customers have come to expect the final release to be buggy anyhow.
The only people who are going to install the leaked software probably wouldn't buy the final build anyhow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29871103</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>skiman1979</author>
	<datestamp>1256563980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"you know" can still be distracting in public speaking, especially if you say it a lot.  Are you suggesting that I already know the things you are telling me in your speech?  If so, then why are you telling me these things?  Is your speech insignificant?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>People tend to say 'umm' and the like a lot less in 1 on 1 conversations than they do when speaking to an audience.  If you can pick different audience members to make eye contact with during different parts of your speech, like you are talking directly to that person, you may notice you use less of these verbal crutches.</p><p>Silence can also be a nice tool.  Silence gives the audience a moment to let your message 'sink in' while you moving to the next point.  It also gives you a moment to gather your thoughts if you lose your place while the audience thinks about what you've said... as long as you don't pause too often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" you know " can still be distracting in public speaking , especially if you say it a lot .
Are you suggesting that I already know the things you are telling me in your speech ?
If so , then why are you telling me these things ?
Is your speech insignificant ?
: ) People tend to say 'umm ' and the like a lot less in 1 on 1 conversations than they do when speaking to an audience .
If you can pick different audience members to make eye contact with during different parts of your speech , like you are talking directly to that person , you may notice you use less of these verbal crutches.Silence can also be a nice tool .
Silence gives the audience a moment to let your message 'sink in ' while you moving to the next point .
It also gives you a moment to gather your thoughts if you lose your place while the audience thinks about what you 've said... as long as you do n't pause too often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"you know" can still be distracting in public speaking, especially if you say it a lot.
Are you suggesting that I already know the things you are telling me in your speech?
If so, then why are you telling me these things?
Is your speech insignificant?
:)People tend to say 'umm' and the like a lot less in 1 on 1 conversations than they do when speaking to an audience.
If you can pick different audience members to make eye contact with during different parts of your speech, like you are talking directly to that person, you may notice you use less of these verbal crutches.Silence can also be a nice tool.
Silence gives the audience a moment to let your message 'sink in' while you moving to the next point.
It also gives you a moment to gather your thoughts if you lose your place while the audience thinks about what you've said... as long as you don't pause too often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867923</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256475660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>There is no super secrete leak committee.</p></div></blockquote><p>I take it a good grasp of basic written English wasn't a job requirement?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a relatively senior development manager in WindowsThere is no super secrete leak committee.I take it a good grasp of basic written English was n't a job requirement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a relatively senior development manager in WindowsThere is no super secrete leak committee.I take it a good grasp of basic written English wasn't a job requirement?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867633</id>
	<title>Re:They are effective even if they aren't quality</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1256471940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft is very effective at marketing in a fashion that gets many people interested in their products.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX4t5-YpHQ" title="youtube.com">Windows 7 Party</a> [youtube.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIjNJZpRtj8" title="youtube.com">Bill and Jerry in the shoe store</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Now, you'll excuse me while I brush the floor off of my shoulder - evidently stuck there from the fact that I'm ROTFLMAO.</p><p>But then again, I wonder - how has Microsoft's most successful marketing worked?  Ah - here it is:</p><p><a href="http://users.telenet.be/geertu/DELL\_and\_MS.html" title="telenet.be">Microsoft forces DELL to deliver Windows</a> [telenet.be]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is very effective at marketing in a fashion that gets many people interested in their products .
Windows 7 Party [ youtube.com ] Bill and Jerry in the shoe store [ youtube.com ] Now , you 'll excuse me while I brush the floor off of my shoulder - evidently stuck there from the fact that I 'm ROTFLMAO.But then again , I wonder - how has Microsoft 's most successful marketing worked ?
Ah - here it is : Microsoft forces DELL to deliver Windows [ telenet.be ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is very effective at marketing in a fashion that gets many people interested in their products.
Windows 7 Party [youtube.com]Bill and Jerry in the shoe store [youtube.com]Now, you'll excuse me while I brush the floor off of my shoulder - evidently stuck there from the fact that I'm ROTFLMAO.But then again, I wonder - how has Microsoft's most successful marketing worked?
Ah - here it is:Microsoft forces DELL to deliver Windows [telenet.be]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866663</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>poofmeisterp</author>
	<datestamp>1256503800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's suprising how many times one person can, you know, say "you know" in one interview.</p><p>For the record, it was 22 times, don't you know...</p></div><p>Don't you know is from Minnesota, don't you know?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's suprising how many times one person can , you know , say " you know " in one interview.For the record , it was 22 times , do n't you know...Do n't you know is from Minnesota , do n't you know ?
: &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's suprising how many times one person can, you know, say "you know" in one interview.For the record, it was 22 times, don't you know...Don't you know is from Minnesota, don't you know?
:&gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869161</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>kaizokuace</author>
	<datestamp>1256493660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea "don't you know" is like part of their syntax for the midwest markup language MML. It's the same as  in HTML.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea " do n't you know " is like part of their syntax for the midwest markup language MML .
It 's the same as in HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea "don't you know" is like part of their syntax for the midwest markup language MML.
It's the same as  in HTML.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869245</id>
	<title>MS Takes a leak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256495340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't thinking that MS is taking a leak on the internet on purpose just gross?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't thinking that MS is taking a leak on the internet on purpose just gross ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't thinking that MS is taking a leak on the internet on purpose just gross?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866729</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1256504280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try listening to people in casual unprepared (speech, not text) conversation. You'll be surprised how many nonsense syllables people use because their thought can't keep up with their speaking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try listening to people in casual unprepared ( speech , not text ) conversation .
You 'll be surprised how many nonsense syllables people use because their thought ca n't keep up with their speaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try listening to people in casual unprepared (speech, not text) conversation.
You'll be surprised how many nonsense syllables people use because their thought can't keep up with their speaking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867771</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1256473560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or to bullshit the press and the competition when your product doesn't cut the mustard, see <a href="http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/4E2A8848-5738-45B1-A659-AD7473899D7D.html" title="roughlydrafted.com">The yellow road to Cairo</a> [roughlydrafted.com] as an example. No matter what you think of MSFT you really have to give them credit, because their early 90s products compared to the competition (NextSTEP, OS2, even System 7) were really pretty shitty, but by throwing enough BS and a few well placed leaks with the press they made everyone think they had a super OS waiting in the wings just getting the finishing touches put on it.</p><p>

To be able to kick the competitor's asses without actually having a product is pretty damned impressive in my book, and proves that in the right hands with careful planning leaks can be a powerful tool. What was it old Jack Trammell said? Business is war? Well it is pretty impressive to me to kick your competition off the battlefield by just the illusion of having the bigger gun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or to bullshit the press and the competition when your product does n't cut the mustard , see The yellow road to Cairo [ roughlydrafted.com ] as an example .
No matter what you think of MSFT you really have to give them credit , because their early 90s products compared to the competition ( NextSTEP , OS2 , even System 7 ) were really pretty shitty , but by throwing enough BS and a few well placed leaks with the press they made everyone think they had a super OS waiting in the wings just getting the finishing touches put on it .
To be able to kick the competitor 's asses without actually having a product is pretty damned impressive in my book , and proves that in the right hands with careful planning leaks can be a powerful tool .
What was it old Jack Trammell said ?
Business is war ?
Well it is pretty impressive to me to kick your competition off the battlefield by just the illusion of having the bigger gun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or to bullshit the press and the competition when your product doesn't cut the mustard, see The yellow road to Cairo [roughlydrafted.com] as an example.
No matter what you think of MSFT you really have to give them credit, because their early 90s products compared to the competition (NextSTEP, OS2, even System 7) were really pretty shitty, but by throwing enough BS and a few well placed leaks with the press they made everyone think they had a super OS waiting in the wings just getting the finishing touches put on it.
To be able to kick the competitor's asses without actually having a product is pretty damned impressive in my book, and proves that in the right hands with careful planning leaks can be a powerful tool.
What was it old Jack Trammell said?
Business is war?
Well it is pretty impressive to me to kick your competition off the battlefield by just the illusion of having the bigger gun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866999</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1256463900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's above your paygrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's above your paygrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's above your paygrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868859</id>
	<title>Re:My software doesn't leak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256488140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are writing software that are safe from memory leaks just from the fact that you are using a garbage collector, you are not writing very advanced software. Hint: memory leaks due to forgetting to call a matching delete on a new is only one basic way to get leaks from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are writing software that are safe from memory leaks just from the fact that you are using a garbage collector , you are not writing very advanced software .
Hint : memory leaks due to forgetting to call a matching delete on a new is only one basic way to get leaks from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are writing software that are safe from memory leaks just from the fact that you are using a garbage collector, you are not writing very advanced software.
Hint: memory leaks due to forgetting to call a matching delete on a new is only one basic way to get leaks from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868485</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1256483160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You betcha!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You betcha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You betcha!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595</id>
	<title>You know</title>
	<author>Turzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1256503080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's suprising how many times one person can, you know, say "you know" in one interview.

For the record, it was 22 times, don't you know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's suprising how many times one person can , you know , say " you know " in one interview .
For the record , it was 22 times , do n't you know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's suprising how many times one person can, you know, say "you know" in one interview.
For the record, it was 22 times, don't you know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867677</id>
	<title>Re:'Surprise'</title>
	<author>tehniobium</author>
	<datestamp>1256472360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeh, I was hoping for the MIA (MS Internal Affairs) who are a CSI type outfit to come in and kick the hell out of everybody<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br><br>Or at least something more surprising and "insiderish" than this BS.<br><br>Then again I should know not to RTFA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeh , I was hoping for the MIA ( MS Internal Affairs ) who are a CSI type outfit to come in and kick the hell out of everybody ; ) Or at least something more surprising and " insiderish " than this BS.Then again I should know not to RTFA ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeh, I was hoping for the MIA (MS Internal Affairs) who are a CSI type outfit to come in and kick the hell out of everybody ;)Or at least something more surprising and "insiderish" than this BS.Then again I should know not to RTFA ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866789</id>
	<title>Windows 7&rsquo;s biggest threat: journalists</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1256461620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Microsoft's launch of Windows 7 continues to attract small amounts of attention, it today issued a plea through its network of objective opinion-shapers: <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2008/11/12/windows-7s-biggest-threat-journalists/" title="today.com">Don&rsquo;t let the journalists near it.</a> [today.com]

</p><p>&ldquo;We understand that many journalists use Macs,&rdquo; said CNet marketing marketer Don Reisinger. &ldquo;This means they necessarily suckle at the Satanic rear passage of Steve Jobs. We cannot countenance their bias and 'reality' leaks. Journalists are responsible for all those signs outside computer shops offering to replace Vista with XP. When was the last time you saw the entire technology field stop and wait for an announcement from any other company besides Apple? It&rsquo;s so unfair!&rdquo;

</p><p>Smears and slanders also come from obsessive overweight nerdy Mac-using Linux geek troublemakers who run &ldquo;benchmarks&rdquo; and &ldquo;tests.&rdquo; &ldquo;It&rsquo;s horrifying leaks and bias from the &lsquo;reality&rsquo;-based community,&rdquo; said ZDNet marketing marketer Mary Jo Enderle. &ldquo;We understand that, just because Vista was 40\% slower than XP and Windows 7 is the same speed as Vista, the nattering nabobs of negativism are already writing press releases condemning it as &lsquo;not enough of an improvement&rsquo; - based entirely on unauthorised leaks of the official beta and RC. It&rsquo;s so unfair!&rdquo;

</p><p>&ldquo;Mactards are like concentration camp guards,&rdquo; said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield, &ldquo;brutalising &lsquo;I&rsquo;m A PC&rsquo; users and&rdquo; [<i>This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator. Replies may also be deleted.</i>]

</p><p>&ldquo;The only reason Vista failed was because Microsoft planned for it to fail,&rdquo; said Reisinger in an earlier ad-banner troll post. &ldquo;It was a fantastically subtle double-bluff! They did the honorable thing in the face of the vile calumnies spread by Apple. It&rsquo;s so unfair!&rdquo;

</p><p>Microsoft debuted Windows 7 on a new 17 Asus Eee Ultra-Portable Mini-Netbook with 8GB memory and a 2GHz quad-core processor. Battery life is up to twenty minutes in preliminary tests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Microsoft 's launch of Windows 7 continues to attract small amounts of attention , it today issued a plea through its network of objective opinion-shapers : Don    t let the journalists near it .
[ today.com ]    We understand that many journalists use Macs ,    said CNet marketing marketer Don Reisinger .
   This means they necessarily suckle at the Satanic rear passage of Steve Jobs .
We can not countenance their bias and 'reality ' leaks .
Journalists are responsible for all those signs outside computer shops offering to replace Vista with XP .
When was the last time you saw the entire technology field stop and wait for an announcement from any other company besides Apple ?
It    s so unfair !    Smears and slanders also come from obsessive overweight nerdy Mac-using Linux geek troublemakers who run    benchmarks    and    tests.       It    s horrifying leaks and bias from the    reality    -based community ,    said ZDNet marketing marketer Mary Jo Enderle .
   We understand that , just because Vista was 40 \ % slower than XP and Windows 7 is the same speed as Vista , the nattering nabobs of negativism are already writing press releases condemning it as    not enough of an improvement    - based entirely on unauthorised leaks of the official beta and RC .
It    s so unfair !       Mactards are like concentration camp guards ,    said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield ,    brutalising    I    m A PC    users and    [ This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator .
Replies may also be deleted .
]    The only reason Vista failed was because Microsoft planned for it to fail ,    said Reisinger in an earlier ad-banner troll post .
   It was a fantastically subtle double-bluff !
They did the honorable thing in the face of the vile calumnies spread by Apple .
It    s so unfair !    Microsoft debuted Windows 7 on a new 17 Asus Eee Ultra-Portable Mini-Netbook with 8GB memory and a 2GHz quad-core processor .
Battery life is up to twenty minutes in preliminary tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Microsoft's launch of Windows 7 continues to attract small amounts of attention, it today issued a plea through its network of objective opinion-shapers: Don’t let the journalists near it.
[today.com]

“We understand that many journalists use Macs,” said CNet marketing marketer Don Reisinger.
“This means they necessarily suckle at the Satanic rear passage of Steve Jobs.
We cannot countenance their bias and 'reality' leaks.
Journalists are responsible for all those signs outside computer shops offering to replace Vista with XP.
When was the last time you saw the entire technology field stop and wait for an announcement from any other company besides Apple?
It’s so unfair!”

Smears and slanders also come from obsessive overweight nerdy Mac-using Linux geek troublemakers who run “benchmarks” and “tests.” “It’s horrifying leaks and bias from the ‘reality’-based community,” said ZDNet marketing marketer Mary Jo Enderle.
“We understand that, just because Vista was 40\% slower than XP and Windows 7 is the same speed as Vista, the nattering nabobs of negativism are already writing press releases condemning it as ‘not enough of an improvement’ - based entirely on unauthorised leaks of the official beta and RC.
It’s so unfair!”

“Mactards are like concentration camp guards,” said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield, “brutalising ‘I’m A PC’ users and” [This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator.
Replies may also be deleted.
]

“The only reason Vista failed was because Microsoft planned for it to fail,” said Reisinger in an earlier ad-banner troll post.
“It was a fantastically subtle double-bluff!
They did the honorable thing in the face of the vile calumnies spread by Apple.
It’s so unfair!”

Microsoft debuted Windows 7 on a new 17 Asus Eee Ultra-Portable Mini-Netbook with 8GB memory and a 2GHz quad-core processor.
Battery life is up to twenty minutes in preliminary tests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29874293</id>
	<title>leak of a leak of a leak</title>
	<author>lie2me</author>
	<datestamp>1256581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... of a super secret leaks marketing depeartment</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... of a super secret leaks marketing depeartment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... of a super secret leaks marketing depeartment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866661</id>
	<title>I don't believe the article.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1256503800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the "anonymous softie", the over use of colloquial communication's - "you know", shows that this interview was entirely made up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the " anonymous softie " , the over use of colloquial communication 's - " you know " , shows that this interview was entirely made up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the "anonymous softie", the over use of colloquial communication's - "you know", shows that this interview was entirely made up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868161</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, THOSE leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256478300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought they were talking about the Pampers kind of leaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they were talking about the Pampers kind of leaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they were talking about the Pampers kind of leaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868405</id>
	<title>Re:So what do we take away vis a vis open source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256482200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah Open Source doesn't have any sort of image problem with being "Half baked" or "constantly in beta".  I'm sure Microsoft wishes it had Linux's desktop market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah Open Source does n't have any sort of image problem with being " Half baked " or " constantly in beta " .
I 'm sure Microsoft wishes it had Linux 's desktop market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah Open Source doesn't have any sort of image problem with being "Half baked" or "constantly in beta".
I'm sure Microsoft wishes it had Linux's desktop market share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866569</id>
	<title>They are effective even if they aren't quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256502900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is very effective at marketing in a fashion that gets many people interested in their products.</p><p>It also gets people that would normally dislike their products curious about what's going on and trying them.</p><p>I've watched it happen for so many years now that I know it to be a fact!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is very effective at marketing in a fashion that gets many people interested in their products.It also gets people that would normally dislike their products curious about what 's going on and trying them.I 've watched it happen for so many years now that I know it to be a fact !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is very effective at marketing in a fashion that gets many people interested in their products.It also gets people that would normally dislike their products curious about what's going on and trying them.I've watched it happen for so many years now that I know it to be a fact!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869781</id>
	<title>Re:Old news - leaking Windows since 1983</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1256588280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. I used to get Windows 95 betas directly from Microsoft's sales/consulting people.</p><p>However, there's sites that post screenshots of early Windows alpha releases handed out to driver devs. The general internet reaction tends negative because it isn't visually any different than the current version. I can't imagine those sorts of leaks do much for PR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
I used to get Windows 95 betas directly from Microsoft 's sales/consulting people.However , there 's sites that post screenshots of early Windows alpha releases handed out to driver devs .
The general internet reaction tends negative because it is n't visually any different than the current version .
I ca n't imagine those sorts of leaks do much for PR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
I used to get Windows 95 betas directly from Microsoft's sales/consulting people.However, there's sites that post screenshots of early Windows alpha releases handed out to driver devs.
The general internet reaction tends negative because it isn't visually any different than the current version.
I can't imagine those sorts of leaks do much for PR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29873713</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256578320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows and no, they are not calculated or deliberate. There is no super secrete leak committee.  Leaks are a big hassle.</p></div><p>you are not relatively high enough i suspect</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows and no , they are not calculated or deliberate .
There is no super secrete leak committee .
Leaks are a big hassle.you are not relatively high enough i suspect</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows and no, they are not calculated or deliberate.
There is no super secrete leak committee.
Leaks are a big hassle.you are not relatively high enough i suspect
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29878931</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1256559660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, that's not a bad idea, you know.  Though it may get old after a while, you know.  So I would try and use it sparingly, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , that 's not a bad idea , you know .
Though it may get old after a while , you know .
So I would try and use it sparingly , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, that's not a bad idea, you know.
Though it may get old after a while, you know.
So I would try and use it sparingly, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867117</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Sir\_Sri</author>
	<datestamp>1256464920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leaks have a lot of different causes.  They can be someone trying to get their 15 minutes of fame for the leak, or a disgruntled employee trying to make things look bad.  They can be communication from the devs to management that things are not in a good state and the leak forces the issue.  They can, as you describe, be intentionally done by marketting types (though it's unlikely MS would need or want to do this, since anyone really interested in MS products can get in on various builds that actually work).  They can be from hackers trying to find a new malware vector, or just some hacker showing off where they got into.  They can also, like closed beta's or the like (or any 'secret' information that say, everyone in the Army knows) be something sufficiently widely distributed it isn't public - but you know it's not perfectly final either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaks have a lot of different causes .
They can be someone trying to get their 15 minutes of fame for the leak , or a disgruntled employee trying to make things look bad .
They can be communication from the devs to management that things are not in a good state and the leak forces the issue .
They can , as you describe , be intentionally done by marketting types ( though it 's unlikely MS would need or want to do this , since anyone really interested in MS products can get in on various builds that actually work ) .
They can be from hackers trying to find a new malware vector , or just some hacker showing off where they got into .
They can also , like closed beta 's or the like ( or any 'secret ' information that say , everyone in the Army knows ) be something sufficiently widely distributed it is n't public - but you know it 's not perfectly final either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaks have a lot of different causes.
They can be someone trying to get their 15 minutes of fame for the leak, or a disgruntled employee trying to make things look bad.
They can be communication from the devs to management that things are not in a good state and the leak forces the issue.
They can, as you describe, be intentionally done by marketting types (though it's unlikely MS would need or want to do this, since anyone really interested in MS products can get in on various builds that actually work).
They can be from hackers trying to find a new malware vector, or just some hacker showing off where they got into.
They can also, like closed beta's or the like (or any 'secret' information that say, everyone in the Army knows) be something sufficiently widely distributed it isn't public - but you know it's not perfectly final either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867317</id>
	<title>It's perfectly fine to edit an interview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256467680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you write up an oral interview, it is perfectly<br>fine to edit for clarity, patch together half sentences,<br>and generally make it so neither you nor your interviewee<br>look like marble-mouthed morons.</p><p>Yes, it's important to not change or add meaning. But<br>simply transcribing a conversation is lazy, crappy<br>journalism. And in this case, you've failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you write up an oral interview , it is perfectlyfine to edit for clarity , patch together half sentences,and generally make it so neither you nor your intervieweelook like marble-mouthed morons.Yes , it 's important to not change or add meaning .
Butsimply transcribing a conversation is lazy , crappyjournalism .
And in this case , you 've failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you write up an oral interview, it is perfectlyfine to edit for clarity, patch together half sentences,and generally make it so neither you nor your intervieweelook like marble-mouthed morons.Yes, it's important to not change or add meaning.
Butsimply transcribing a conversation is lazy, crappyjournalism.
And in this case, you've failed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867587</id>
	<title>Re:'Surprise'</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1256471520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like. This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"''</p><p>Also, if the issue is that leaked builds give people wrong impressions about your product, why don't you release builds that give the right impression? I can see the argument for wanting to keep things under wraps, but if reality is that builds get out there, you might as well ensure that they are the builds you sanction. You know, "release early, release often", and people won't get the wrong impression about what is really going on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` I would summarise that interview as " When builds leak they might be incomplete or old , and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like .
This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass " ''Also , if the issue is that leaked builds give people wrong impressions about your product , why do n't you release builds that give the right impression ?
I can see the argument for wanting to keep things under wraps , but if reality is that builds get out there , you might as well ensure that they are the builds you sanction .
You know , " release early , release often " , and people wo n't get the wrong impression about what is really going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like.
This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"''Also, if the issue is that leaked builds give people wrong impressions about your product, why don't you release builds that give the right impression?
I can see the argument for wanting to keep things under wraps, but if reality is that builds get out there, you might as well ensure that they are the builds you sanction.
You know, "release early, release often", and people won't get the wrong impression about what is really going on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867603</id>
	<title>So what do we take away vis a vis open source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256471640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compare to Linux, for example, where "leaking an unfinished build" is a total non-issue. Even expected, in fact. So whether the leaks are intentional or not, if they are a problem, then it sounds like they're a problem of Microsoft's own making.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare to Linux , for example , where " leaking an unfinished build " is a total non-issue .
Even expected , in fact .
So whether the leaks are intentional or not , if they are a problem , then it sounds like they 're a problem of Microsoft 's own making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare to Linux, for example, where "leaking an unfinished build" is a total non-issue.
Even expected, in fact.
So whether the leaks are intentional or not, if they are a problem, then it sounds like they're a problem of Microsoft's own making.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867527</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256470320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Betas, technical previews, and release candidates are the mechanism to building public interest in new products. Betas/TPs/RCs are planned, announced, and ensured to meet a minimum quality bar. Leaked builds are none of those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Betas , technical previews , and release candidates are the mechanism to building public interest in new products .
Betas/TPs/RCs are planned , announced , and ensured to meet a minimum quality bar .
Leaked builds are none of those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Betas, technical previews, and release candidates are the mechanism to building public interest in new products.
Betas/TPs/RCs are planned, announced, and ensured to meet a minimum quality bar.
Leaked builds are none of those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868325</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1256481180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As a matter of fact, the actual "accent" or "dialect" we possess, or rather the lack of an accent or dialect</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yes, after all those thousands of years English has been evolving and mutating, it finally finds perfect expression without accent or dialect in, of all places, Minnesota, USA. Coincidentally, where you were born and raised. What are the chances? How lucky you are!
<br> <br>
p.s. when your bridge gets fixed, consider a road trip.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a matter of fact , the actual " accent " or " dialect " we possess , or rather the lack of an accent or dialect Yes , after all those thousands of years English has been evolving and mutating , it finally finds perfect expression without accent or dialect in , of all places , Minnesota , USA .
Coincidentally , where you were born and raised .
What are the chances ?
How lucky you are !
p.s. when your bridge gets fixed , consider a road trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a matter of fact, the actual "accent" or "dialect" we possess, or rather the lack of an accent or dialect
Yes, after all those thousands of years English has been evolving and mutating, it finally finds perfect expression without accent or dialect in, of all places, Minnesota, USA.
Coincidentally, where you were born and raised.
What are the chances?
How lucky you are!
p.s. when your bridge gets fixed, consider a road trip.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866907</id>
	<title>Leeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256462820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.leekspin.com/" title="leekspin.com" rel="nofollow">I prefer this sort of leek, myself.</a> [leekspin.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer this sort of leek , myself .
[ leekspin.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer this sort of leek, myself.
[leekspin.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29870031</id>
	<title>Asus eee Box ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256548800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Altho i haven't tried it - i've considered buying it.</p><p>Load pwer consumption is apparently only 19W  ( http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3321&amp;p=5 )<br>- i think it's looks like an alternative to the mac mini.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Altho i have n't tried it - i 've considered buying it.Load pwer consumption is apparently only 19W ( http : //www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx ? i = 3321&amp;p = 5 ) - i think it 's looks like an alternative to the mac mini .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Altho i haven't tried it - i've considered buying it.Load pwer consumption is apparently only 19W  ( http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3321&amp;p=5 )- i think it's looks like an alternative to the mac mini.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867107</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>JohnnyBGod</author>
	<datestamp>1256464800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must really like people talking trash about the work you do, to hang around here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must really like people talking trash about the work you do , to hang around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must really like people talking trash about the work you do, to hang around here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869627</id>
	<title>No they are not 8for you)</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1256499840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you are a dev manager , then you do not care a SHIT on leak. As the ncie article pointed out, only  MARKETING manager  and associated cre for a leak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you are a dev manager , then you do not care a SHIT on leak .
As the ncie article pointed out , only MARKETING manager and associated cre for a leak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you are a dev manager , then you do not care a SHIT on leak.
As the ncie article pointed out, only  MARKETING manager  and associated cre for a leak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869957</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1256547780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who grew up in a different region and travels to Minnesota on occasion, I'm quite comfortable confirming that you folks do speak that way. Of course us Chicago natives apparently sound like Coach Ditka in the SNL skits.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>It's more pronounced in da U.P. though, eh.  We haav a place dare too, eh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who grew up in a different region and travels to Minnesota on occasion , I 'm quite comfortable confirming that you folks do speak that way .
Of course us Chicago natives apparently sound like Coach Ditka in the SNL skits .
; ) It 's more pronounced in da U.P .
though , eh .
We haav a place dare too , eh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who grew up in a different region and travels to Minnesota on occasion, I'm quite comfortable confirming that you folks do speak that way.
Of course us Chicago natives apparently sound like Coach Ditka in the SNL skits.
;)It's more pronounced in da U.P.
though, eh.
We haav a place dare too, eh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867077</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256464500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seemed like the "you knows" were silence fillers to keep the interviewee from interrupting the brilliant interviewer.</p><p>Here's a hint: the guy you are interviewing should probably talk more than you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seemed like the " you knows " were silence fillers to keep the interviewee from interrupting the brilliant interviewer.Here 's a hint : the guy you are interviewing should probably talk more than you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seemed like the "you knows" were silence fillers to keep the interviewee from interrupting the brilliant interviewer.Here's a hint: the guy you are interviewing should probably talk more than you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868357</id>
	<title>Re:My software doesn't leak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256481480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java is just trading one pitfall for another. Instead of remembering to delete unused objects, you have to make sure they're not reachable from the roots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java is just trading one pitfall for another .
Instead of remembering to delete unused objects , you have to make sure they 're not reachable from the roots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java is just trading one pitfall for another.
Instead of remembering to delete unused objects, you have to make sure they're not reachable from the roots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866873</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1256462460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>secrete leak</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Heh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>secrete leak Heh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>secrete leak

Heh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867129</id>
	<title>Re:You know</title>
	<author>dj\_tla</author>
	<datestamp>1256465100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's common practice for a journalist to strip those nonsense syllables from an audio interview transcribed to text. Just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's common practice for a journalist to strip those nonsense syllables from an audio interview transcribed to text .
Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's common practice for a journalist to strip those nonsense syllables from an audio interview transcribed to text.
Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867427</id>
	<title>Re:I always had the impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256468880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's exactly what I'd expect the Secret Leak Committee to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly what I 'd expect the Secret Leak Committee to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly what I'd expect the Secret Leak Committee to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868917</id>
	<title>They don't need leaks</title>
	<author>DavMz</author>
	<datestamp>1256489220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't imagine what their job looked like the day they released the (in)famous build5048: Longhorn Developer Preview</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine what their job looked like the day they released the ( in ) famous build5048 : Longhorn Developer Preview</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine what their job looked like the day they released the (in)famous build5048: Longhorn Developer Preview</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866747</id>
	<title>Re:'Surprise'</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1256461260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass</i> <p>Well, he shouldn't sit on his phone.It wouldn't be a pain in the ass then, would it? </p><p>Geeze!</p><p>Unless, he's kinky and well I won't go there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass Well , he should n't sit on his phone.It would n't be a pain in the ass then , would it ?
Geeze ! Unless , he 's kinky and well I wo n't go there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass Well, he shouldn't sit on his phone.It wouldn't be a pain in the ass then, would it?
Geeze!Unless, he's kinky and well I won't go there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29871103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29873713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29877889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29871189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29872495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29878931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29870139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29870805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29885621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29873495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_1842246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29870805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29877889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29872495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867071
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29873495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867427
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29870139
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29885621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29873713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29871103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29878931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867191
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868485
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29871189
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869957
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29868325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29867145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29869781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_1842246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_1842246.29866709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
