<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_29_2248246</id>
	<title>Fixing Bugs, But Bypassing the Source Code</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256814180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>shreshtha contributes this snippet from MIT's Technology Review: <i>"Martin Rinard, a professor of computer science at MIT, is unabashed about the ultimate goal of his group's research: 'delivering an immortal, invulnerable program.' In work presented this month at the ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles in Big Sky, MT, his group has developed <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/23821/">software that can find and fix certain types of software bugs within a matter of minutes</a>."</i> Interestingly, this software doesn't need access to the source code of the target program.</htmltext>
<tokenext>shreshtha contributes this snippet from MIT 's Technology Review : " Martin Rinard , a professor of computer science at MIT , is unabashed about the ultimate goal of his group 's research : 'delivering an immortal , invulnerable program .
' In work presented this month at the ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles in Big Sky , MT , his group has developed software that can find and fix certain types of software bugs within a matter of minutes .
" Interestingly , this software does n't need access to the source code of the target program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shreshtha contributes this snippet from MIT's Technology Review: "Martin Rinard, a professor of computer science at MIT, is unabashed about the ultimate goal of his group's research: 'delivering an immortal, invulnerable program.
' In work presented this month at the ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles in Big Sky, MT, his group has developed software that can find and fix certain types of software bugs within a matter of minutes.
" Interestingly, this software doesn't need access to the source code of the target program.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918373</id>
	<title>DMCA?</title>
	<author>happyslayer</author>
	<datestamp>1256819880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how long before someone uses this to "patch" DRM and/or Windows Genuine Advantage?  They interfere with my computer's functions, cause software/systems to fail out of nowhere, and are an unwanted inclusion in many programs.  Yep--sounds like bugs to me!</p><p>Which means it won't be long before patches are available.  Cue the angry horde of DMCA attorneys....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how long before someone uses this to " patch " DRM and/or Windows Genuine Advantage ?
They interfere with my computer 's functions , cause software/systems to fail out of nowhere , and are an unwanted inclusion in many programs .
Yep--sounds like bugs to me ! Which means it wo n't be long before patches are available .
Cue the angry horde of DMCA attorneys... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how long before someone uses this to "patch" DRM and/or Windows Genuine Advantage?
They interfere with my computer's functions, cause software/systems to fail out of nowhere, and are an unwanted inclusion in many programs.
Yep--sounds like bugs to me!Which means it won't be long before patches are available.
Cue the angry horde of DMCA attorneys....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920143</id>
	<title>Re:This really deserves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This idea can work. It is effectively possible to solve some types of trivial bugs in the executable.<br>Here is what could go wrong:<br>1 - A program is written with high security features.<br>2 - The programmer disable security just for testing. I create such back doors all the time.<br>3 - At some point the a bug is introduced that closes the back door.<br>4 - Trying to access the back door causes a trap.<br>5 - The program passes quality control. Accessing the back door causes an ugly trap but this is a minor issue.<br>6 - Clearview detect the bug, fixes it and reopens the back door.<br>7 - Now everyone can access all other accounts.<br>The root problem is that Clearview does not understand the intent of the program.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea can work .
It is effectively possible to solve some types of trivial bugs in the executable.Here is what could go wrong : 1 - A program is written with high security features.2 - The programmer disable security just for testing .
I create such back doors all the time.3 - At some point the a bug is introduced that closes the back door.4 - Trying to access the back door causes a trap.5 - The program passes quality control .
Accessing the back door causes an ugly trap but this is a minor issue.6 - Clearview detect the bug , fixes it and reopens the back door.7 - Now everyone can access all other accounts.The root problem is that Clearview does not understand the intent of the program .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea can work.
It is effectively possible to solve some types of trivial bugs in the executable.Here is what could go wrong:1 - A program is written with high security features.2 - The programmer disable security just for testing.
I create such back doors all the time.3 - At some point the a bug is introduced that closes the back door.4 - Trying to access the back door causes a trap.5 - The program passes quality control.
Accessing the back door causes an ugly trap but this is a minor issue.6 - Clearview detect the bug, fixes it and reopens the back door.7 - Now everyone can access all other accounts.The root problem is that Clearview does not understand the intent of the program.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919937</id>
	<title>Occam's Razor</title>
	<author>Lord Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1256830380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<blockquote><div><p> <i>
By observing a program's normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, ClearView detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program. When something goes wrong, ClearView detects the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to force the software to follow the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) ClearView analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, ClearView rejects it and tries another.
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So, when ClearView finds something wrong it magics up a patch, using some analysis based on previous execution path behavior or something <i>(waves hand dismissively),</i> then installs the patch directly into the application code.
<br> <br>
Maybe I'm just oversimplifying things, but what about just taking a snapshot of the application and replacing the whole thing, shotgun-style, from read-only media when the binary changes unexpectedly?  Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot simpler?  A Perl-based daemon wielding the mighty <tt>md5</tt> utility could do that in, what, 100 lines of code and comments?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : By observing a program 's normal behavior and assigning a set of rules , ClearView detects certain types of errors , particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program .
When something goes wrong , ClearView detects the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated .
It then comes up with several potential patches designed to force the software to follow the violated rules .
( The patches are applied directly to the binary , bypassing the source code .
) ClearView analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work , then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness .
If additional rules are violated , or if a patch causes the system to crash , ClearView rejects it and tries another .
So , when ClearView finds something wrong it magics up a patch , using some analysis based on previous execution path behavior or something ( waves hand dismissively ) , then installs the patch directly into the application code .
Maybe I 'm just oversimplifying things , but what about just taking a snapshot of the application and replacing the whole thing , shotgun-style , from read-only media when the binary changes unexpectedly ?
Would n't that be a hell of a lot simpler ?
A Perl-based daemon wielding the mighty md5 utility could do that in , what , 100 lines of code and comments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: 
By observing a program's normal behavior and assigning a set of rules, ClearView detects certain types of errors, particularly those caused when an attacker injects malicious input into a program.
When something goes wrong, ClearView detects the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated.
It then comes up with several potential patches designed to force the software to follow the violated rules.
(The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.
) ClearView analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness.
If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, ClearView rejects it and tries another.
So, when ClearView finds something wrong it magics up a patch, using some analysis based on previous execution path behavior or something (waves hand dismissively), then installs the patch directly into the application code.
Maybe I'm just oversimplifying things, but what about just taking a snapshot of the application and replacing the whole thing, shotgun-style, from read-only media when the binary changes unexpectedly?
Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot simpler?
A Perl-based daemon wielding the mighty md5 utility could do that in, what, 100 lines of code and comments?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29993188</id>
	<title>Nah...</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1257425460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All fancy language to qualify as a research project, but the authors *really* just want a universalautowarezpatchercracker</htmltext>
<tokenext>All fancy language to qualify as a research project , but the authors * really * just want a universalautowarezpatchercracker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All fancy language to qualify as a research project, but the authors *really* just want a universalautowarezpatchercracker</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918387</id>
	<title>Yeah right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256820000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"Keeping the system going at all costs does seem to have merit," adds David Pearce, a senior lecturer in computer science at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.</i></p> </div><p>At all costs?  What sort of systems does he imagine this would be useful for? Flight control computers? Industrial robots? Nuclear reactor control systems? Radiation therapy machines?</p><p>Or just systems where people's lives aren't potentially in jeopardy when "Keeping the system going at all costs" results in the system going haywire?  When certain systems have something go wrong and end up in an unanticipated state, the thing you want to do is reset them to a known state, not just keep them going in hopes the software can get things under control.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Keeping the system going at all costs does seem to have merit , " adds David Pearce , a senior lecturer in computer science at Victoria University in Wellington , New Zealand .
At all costs ?
What sort of systems does he imagine this would be useful for ?
Flight control computers ?
Industrial robots ?
Nuclear reactor control systems ?
Radiation therapy machines ? Or just systems where people 's lives are n't potentially in jeopardy when " Keeping the system going at all costs " results in the system going haywire ?
When certain systems have something go wrong and end up in an unanticipated state , the thing you want to do is reset them to a known state , not just keep them going in hopes the software can get things under control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Keeping the system going at all costs does seem to have merit," adds David Pearce, a senior lecturer in computer science at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.
At all costs?
What sort of systems does he imagine this would be useful for?
Flight control computers?
Industrial robots?
Nuclear reactor control systems?
Radiation therapy machines?Or just systems where people's lives aren't potentially in jeopardy when "Keeping the system going at all costs" results in the system going haywire?
When certain systems have something go wrong and end up in an unanticipated state, the thing you want to do is reset them to a known state, not just keep them going in hopes the software can get things under control.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918219</id>
	<title>clearview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256818920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the programs that Clearview is monitering/patching are the target, wouldn't it make sense for an attacker to focus on Clearview first?  Perhaps even alter its function to serve the purposes of the attacker instead of the user.  Why attack the programs it is patching when you could hit Clearview and gain the ability to hijack everything it is patching?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the programs that Clearview is monitering/patching are the target , would n't it make sense for an attacker to focus on Clearview first ?
Perhaps even alter its function to serve the purposes of the attacker instead of the user .
Why attack the programs it is patching when you could hit Clearview and gain the ability to hijack everything it is patching ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the programs that Clearview is monitering/patching are the target, wouldn't it make sense for an attacker to focus on Clearview first?
Perhaps even alter its function to serve the purposes of the attacker instead of the user.
Why attack the programs it is patching when you could hit Clearview and gain the ability to hijack everything it is patching?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919003</id>
	<title>This is complete junk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256823300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is completely useless for any real application and for any complicated bugs. I've dealt with this for many many years. It sounds good in theory, but it simply doesn't work in the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is completely useless for any real application and for any complicated bugs .
I 've dealt with this for many many years .
It sounds good in theory , but it simply does n't work in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is completely useless for any real application and for any complicated bugs.
I've dealt with this for many many years.
It sounds good in theory, but it simply doesn't work in the real world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920499</id>
	<title>ASM</title>
	<author>andreyvul</author>
	<datestamp>1256836140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you automatically have the source<br>patch a few bytes and off you go</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you automatically have the sourcepatch a few bytes and off you go</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you automatically have the sourcepatch a few bytes and off you go</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918117</id>
	<title>Source doesn't run</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1256818320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course it can fix a program without the source code.  The source code is not the part that runs.  Rather it is the executable, which is just a  file of bytes.  Find/Replace one sequence of bytes with another, and you've changed the program without the source. It's not a big deal.  Viruses have been doing this sort of thing for decades.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it can fix a program without the source code .
The source code is not the part that runs .
Rather it is the executable , which is just a file of bytes .
Find/Replace one sequence of bytes with another , and you 've changed the program without the source .
It 's not a big deal .
Viruses have been doing this sort of thing for decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it can fix a program without the source code.
The source code is not the part that runs.
Rather it is the executable, which is just a  file of bytes.
Find/Replace one sequence of bytes with another, and you've changed the program without the source.
It's not a big deal.
Viruses have been doing this sort of thing for decades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919589</id>
	<title>thesis grade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm.  Sounds like some CS urban legend.  Never heard - not once - of a "thesis grade". Pass, no-pass, conditional pass.  I didn't receive a grade myself.  Just a diploma.  Be great for those kind of folks that put GPA's on their CV, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
Sounds like some CS urban legend .
Never heard - not once - of a " thesis grade " .
Pass , no-pass , conditional pass .
I did n't receive a grade myself .
Just a diploma .
Be great for those kind of folks that put GPA 's on their CV , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
Sounds like some CS urban legend.
Never heard - not once - of a "thesis grade".
Pass, no-pass, conditional pass.
I didn't receive a grade myself.
Just a diploma.
Be great for those kind of folks that put GPA's on their CV, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920353</id>
	<title>Re:I sure wouldn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256834400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Error - Not enough self-awareness</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Error - Not enough self-awareness</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Error - Not enough self-awareness</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918199</id>
	<title>DNA?</title>
	<author>ShadowXOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1256818800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>May be isnt immortal and invulnerable, but is pretty near...<br>
- self repairing <br>
- self replicating <br>
- survive large amounts of time with minor changes</htmltext>
<tokenext>May be isnt immortal and invulnerable , but is pretty near.. . - self repairing - self replicating - survive large amounts of time with minor changes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May be isnt immortal and invulnerable, but is pretty near...
- self repairing 
- self replicating 
- survive large amounts of time with minor changes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918625</id>
	<title>Re:Why owuld you need to access the source</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1256821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look at the hex, make changes. The conept is no different then inserting or replacing a JMP to get around software protection.</p></div><p>Exactly! This software sounds like it might work for getting around non-technical vendor-imposed arbitrary limitations. </p><p>If you don't feel like paying for the Standard Edition of SQL Server 2005 anymore, now you won't have to, you can just purchase the slightly crippled Workgroup edition, and have ClearView make sure the database keeps on running after it blows by its self-imposed limits. Don't have legal copies of Windows 7, that's ok. Now your government or your office will have a contingency plan, should Microsoft decide to hit the kill switch on you.</p><p>Not that I expect this software to work that well. In my mind, there is no substitute for having a real knowledgeable human being tinkering with an hex editor in the same manner as this software will try to do. </p><p>That being said, I expect such software to work very well on contrived prepared examples, and I expect such software will make lots of money even if it doesn't work very well in real life. It's the nature of legacy software used in business. You can usually sell any automated magical half-baked solutions for untold amounts money if the customer comes to you at the same point he thinks he's about to lose everything (and has no idea, or no intention, on getting it fixed the right way in the first place).
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the hex , make changes .
The conept is no different then inserting or replacing a JMP to get around software protection.Exactly !
This software sounds like it might work for getting around non-technical vendor-imposed arbitrary limitations .
If you do n't feel like paying for the Standard Edition of SQL Server 2005 anymore , now you wo n't have to , you can just purchase the slightly crippled Workgroup edition , and have ClearView make sure the database keeps on running after it blows by its self-imposed limits .
Do n't have legal copies of Windows 7 , that 's ok. Now your government or your office will have a contingency plan , should Microsoft decide to hit the kill switch on you.Not that I expect this software to work that well .
In my mind , there is no substitute for having a real knowledgeable human being tinkering with an hex editor in the same manner as this software will try to do .
That being said , I expect such software to work very well on contrived prepared examples , and I expect such software will make lots of money even if it does n't work very well in real life .
It 's the nature of legacy software used in business .
You can usually sell any automated magical half-baked solutions for untold amounts money if the customer comes to you at the same point he thinks he 's about to lose everything ( and has no idea , or no intention , on getting it fixed the right way in the first place ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the hex, make changes.
The conept is no different then inserting or replacing a JMP to get around software protection.Exactly!
This software sounds like it might work for getting around non-technical vendor-imposed arbitrary limitations.
If you don't feel like paying for the Standard Edition of SQL Server 2005 anymore, now you won't have to, you can just purchase the slightly crippled Workgroup edition, and have ClearView make sure the database keeps on running after it blows by its self-imposed limits.
Don't have legal copies of Windows 7, that's ok. Now your government or your office will have a contingency plan, should Microsoft decide to hit the kill switch on you.Not that I expect this software to work that well.
In my mind, there is no substitute for having a real knowledgeable human being tinkering with an hex editor in the same manner as this software will try to do.
That being said, I expect such software to work very well on contrived prepared examples, and I expect such software will make lots of money even if it doesn't work very well in real life.
It's the nature of legacy software used in business.
You can usually sell any automated magical half-baked solutions for untold amounts money if the customer comes to you at the same point he thinks he's about to lose everything (and has no idea, or no intention, on getting it fixed the right way in the first place).

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918493</id>
	<title>Sensationalism ruined it for me</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1256820720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software, it takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systems</p></div><p>Yes.  It takes us 5 seconds to an hour to actually come up with the fix, the remainder of the month is spent in bureaucratic hell - sitting in a trouble ticket queue, sitting in a verification queue, sitting in a QA manager's inbox, sitting with the communications team.</p><p>Clearview, if it does what it says on the tin, only addresses the 5 second problem.  Any "sane" dev shop would still run the resultant patch through the many cogs and loops of modern software management.  You won't get your hole patched any quicker, you'll just have shifted the coders' attention away from your own app's bugs, and onto Clearview's bugs.  Net gain: less than zero.</p><p>Theoretically and conceptually, it's an interesting tool (you know, like Intercal).  It just doesn't really fit in the industry, IMHO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software , it takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systemsYes .
It takes us 5 seconds to an hour to actually come up with the fix , the remainder of the month is spent in bureaucratic hell - sitting in a trouble ticket queue , sitting in a verification queue , sitting in a QA manager 's inbox , sitting with the communications team.Clearview , if it does what it says on the tin , only addresses the 5 second problem .
Any " sane " dev shop would still run the resultant patch through the many cogs and loops of modern software management .
You wo n't get your hole patched any quicker , you 'll just have shifted the coders ' attention away from your own app 's bugs , and onto Clearview 's bugs .
Net gain : less than zero.Theoretically and conceptually , it 's an interesting tool ( you know , like Intercal ) .
It just does n't really fit in the industry , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software, it takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systemsYes.
It takes us 5 seconds to an hour to actually come up with the fix, the remainder of the month is spent in bureaucratic hell - sitting in a trouble ticket queue, sitting in a verification queue, sitting in a QA manager's inbox, sitting with the communications team.Clearview, if it does what it says on the tin, only addresses the 5 second problem.
Any "sane" dev shop would still run the resultant patch through the many cogs and loops of modern software management.
You won't get your hole patched any quicker, you'll just have shifted the coders' attention away from your own app's bugs, and onto Clearview's bugs.
Net gain: less than zero.Theoretically and conceptually, it's an interesting tool (you know, like Intercal).
It just doesn't really fit in the industry, IMHO.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918175</id>
	<title>Why owuld you need to access the source</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256818620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>code. I would argue that would be the worst way to do it.</p><p>Look at the hex, make changes. The conept is no different then inserting or replacing a JMP to get around software protection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>code .
I would argue that would be the worst way to do it.Look at the hex , make changes .
The conept is no different then inserting or replacing a JMP to get around software protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>code.
I would argue that would be the worst way to do it.Look at the hex, make changes.
The conept is no different then inserting or replacing a JMP to get around software protection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921389</id>
	<title>Re:It's interesting, but software should "expire".</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1256893320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hah, we're a long way from finishing code to do text boxes and buttons.</p><p>There are many improvements:</p><p>1) Write them to work with opengl<br>2) Write them to scale properly at any DPI<br>3) Have them fully themable via CSS style sheets<br>4) Have them stylable with SVG files<br>5) Adding multi-touch support</p><p>Also, the linux kernel has something like 17 seperate linked list implementations, each doing slightly different things<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah , we 're a long way from finishing code to do text boxes and buttons.There are many improvements : 1 ) Write them to work with opengl2 ) Write them to scale properly at any DPI3 ) Have them fully themable via CSS style sheets4 ) Have them stylable with SVG files5 ) Adding multi-touch supportAlso , the linux kernel has something like 17 seperate linked list implementations , each doing slightly different things : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah, we're a long way from finishing code to do text boxes and buttons.There are many improvements:1) Write them to work with opengl2) Write them to scale properly at any DPI3) Have them fully themable via CSS style sheets4) Have them stylable with SVG files5) Adding multi-touch supportAlso, the linux kernel has something like 17 seperate linked list implementations, each doing slightly different things :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918349</id>
	<title>Microsoft will never buy it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256819700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, ClearView rejects it and tries another. "</p></div></blockquote><p>So Microsoft won't be using it then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If additional rules are violated , or if a patch causes the system to crash , ClearView rejects it and tries another .
" So Microsoft wo n't be using it then .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, ClearView rejects it and tries another.
"So Microsoft won't be using it then ...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29929853</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously Linux developers aren't human ;-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256903580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is absolutely correct, so long as one assumes that Windows systems are the only systems, and Linux developers aren't human.</p></div><p>Stallman would seemingly confirm that second assumption is at least partially true... I've seen apes with less covering</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is absolutely correct , so long as one assumes that Windows systems are the only systems , and Linux developers are n't human.Stallman would seemingly confirm that second assumption is at least partially true... I 've seen apes with less covering</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is absolutely correct, so long as one assumes that Windows systems are the only systems, and Linux developers aren't human.Stallman would seemingly confirm that second assumption is at least partially true... I've seen apes with less covering
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918091</id>
	<title>This really deserves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256818140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A "whatcouldpossiblygowrong". Along with, just to be on the safe side, a "colossustheforbinproject", a "shodan", a "hal", a "skynet" and probably a bunch of others that I'm forgetting right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A " whatcouldpossiblygowrong " .
Along with , just to be on the safe side , a " colossustheforbinproject " , a " shodan " , a " hal " , a " skynet " and probably a bunch of others that I 'm forgetting right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "whatcouldpossiblygowrong".
Along with, just to be on the safe side, a "colossustheforbinproject", a "shodan", a "hal", a "skynet" and probably a bunch of others that I'm forgetting right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919747</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use that tool to develop that tool?</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1256828760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great story, but [Citation needed].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great story , but [ Citation needed ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great story, but [Citation needed].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918561</id>
	<title>Next step: CPUs that do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want my CPU to say, "oh, these are the instructions you <b> <i>meant</i> </b> to execute..."</p><p>(Granted, I'd bet there are optimizations present in CPUs that do this today, but they're not supposed to introduce changes in behavior.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my CPU to say , " oh , these are the instructions you meant to execute... " ( Granted , I 'd bet there are optimizations present in CPUs that do this today , but they 're not supposed to introduce changes in behavior .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my CPU to say, "oh, these are the instructions you  meant  to execute..."(Granted, I'd bet there are optimizations present in CPUs that do this today, but they're not supposed to introduce changes in behavior.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918703</id>
	<title>Re:clearview</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1256821860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Clearview was created by a bunch of people that know what they are doing. Because Clearview is likely to be a much smaller target than the monitored software packages. Because Clearview is not directly connected to the web. Because Clearview may not even be easily detectable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Clearview was created by a bunch of people that know what they are doing .
Because Clearview is likely to be a much smaller target than the monitored software packages .
Because Clearview is not directly connected to the web .
Because Clearview may not even be easily detectable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Clearview was created by a bunch of people that know what they are doing.
Because Clearview is likely to be a much smaller target than the monitored software packages.
Because Clearview is not directly connected to the web.
Because Clearview may not even be easily detectable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918641</id>
	<title>Re:It's interesting, but software should "expire".</title>
	<author>DeadDecoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256821500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's true for some/most cases where we're still exploring how to develop a piece of software around a task. Other pieces of software are well defined and don't really need to be evolved. How many times do you need to recode linked lists until their good enough? I think we're reaching a similar consensus with designing UIs, where some architectural patterns will remain consistent across languages. Like setting up a text box or button. As these pieces become refined or 'immortal' it will free us lowly humans up to work on other problems like fixing that damn vending machine that always clings to my precious snacks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true for some/most cases where we 're still exploring how to develop a piece of software around a task .
Other pieces of software are well defined and do n't really need to be evolved .
How many times do you need to recode linked lists until their good enough ?
I think we 're reaching a similar consensus with designing UIs , where some architectural patterns will remain consistent across languages .
Like setting up a text box or button .
As these pieces become refined or 'immortal ' it will free us lowly humans up to work on other problems like fixing that damn vending machine that always clings to my precious snacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true for some/most cases where we're still exploring how to develop a piece of software around a task.
Other pieces of software are well defined and don't really need to be evolved.
How many times do you need to recode linked lists until their good enough?
I think we're reaching a similar consensus with designing UIs, where some architectural patterns will remain consistent across languages.
Like setting up a text box or button.
As these pieces become refined or 'immortal' it will free us lowly humans up to work on other problems like fixing that damn vending machine that always clings to my precious snacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29931785</id>
	<title>Fixing bugs without accessing source code</title>
	<author>cryptor3</author>
	<datestamp>1256919180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once filed a bug report to a developer with instructions on how to reproduce it.</p><p>He responded with a fix that involved no changes to the source code.</p><p>He said, "don't do that."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once filed a bug report to a developer with instructions on how to reproduce it.He responded with a fix that involved no changes to the source code.He said , " do n't do that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once filed a bug report to a developer with instructions on how to reproduce it.He responded with a fix that involved no changes to the source code.He said, "don't do that.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919809</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously Linux developers aren't human ;-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that they care far less about backwards compatibility ABI since most things for Linux can be recompiled might have a slight effect on why Linux bugs get 'fixed' faster.  You have a different definition of 'fix' than most of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that they care far less about backwards compatibility ABI since most things for Linux can be recompiled might have a slight effect on why Linux bugs get 'fixed ' faster .
You have a different definition of 'fix ' than most of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that they care far less about backwards compatibility ABI since most things for Linux can be recompiled might have a slight effect on why Linux bugs get 'fixed' faster.
You have a different definition of 'fix' than most of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921373</id>
	<title>From a developer's point of view...</title>
	<author>bolt\_the\_dhampir</author>
	<datestamp>1256936340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've tried several programs that study the source code and tries to find possible null pointers, unchecked input, possibly dirty data and whatnot, and they all have one problem - false detections. When the program studies the source code and gives you the output of this process, you can quickly decide whether to act on it, fixing the potential bug, ignore the problem as "intended behaviour", or simply correct the syntax so the source code studying application doesn't complain about it anymore.

However, if you were to run this thing, which is only concerned with the binary, wouldn't it have to run again for every single version of your application you distribute? Also, you'd never actually get any patch information back to put into the source, except maybe in binary...

In addition to this, when some programmers take a quick and dirty approach to things to meet deadlines (which are sometimes more important than clean code) how will the program know about your "// DIRTY HACK. WILL FIX LATER, BUT THIS IS NEEDED FOR THE DEMO. FUNCTION X() WILL WORK AS EXPECTED WITH THE TEST DATA" comment in code? Will it try to correct the binary, producing unexpected results?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tried several programs that study the source code and tries to find possible null pointers , unchecked input , possibly dirty data and whatnot , and they all have one problem - false detections .
When the program studies the source code and gives you the output of this process , you can quickly decide whether to act on it , fixing the potential bug , ignore the problem as " intended behaviour " , or simply correct the syntax so the source code studying application does n't complain about it anymore .
However , if you were to run this thing , which is only concerned with the binary , would n't it have to run again for every single version of your application you distribute ?
Also , you 'd never actually get any patch information back to put into the source , except maybe in binary.. . In addition to this , when some programmers take a quick and dirty approach to things to meet deadlines ( which are sometimes more important than clean code ) how will the program know about your " // DIRTY HACK .
WILL FIX LATER , BUT THIS IS NEEDED FOR THE DEMO .
FUNCTION X ( ) WILL WORK AS EXPECTED WITH THE TEST DATA " comment in code ?
Will it try to correct the binary , producing unexpected results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tried several programs that study the source code and tries to find possible null pointers, unchecked input, possibly dirty data and whatnot, and they all have one problem - false detections.
When the program studies the source code and gives you the output of this process, you can quickly decide whether to act on it, fixing the potential bug, ignore the problem as "intended behaviour", or simply correct the syntax so the source code studying application doesn't complain about it anymore.
However, if you were to run this thing, which is only concerned with the binary, wouldn't it have to run again for every single version of your application you distribute?
Also, you'd never actually get any patch information back to put into the source, except maybe in binary...

In addition to this, when some programmers take a quick and dirty approach to things to meet deadlines (which are sometimes more important than clean code) how will the program know about your "// DIRTY HACK.
WILL FIX LATER, BUT THIS IS NEEDED FOR THE DEMO.
FUNCTION X() WILL WORK AS EXPECTED WITH THE TEST DATA" comment in code?
Will it try to correct the binary, producing unexpected results?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918187</id>
	<title>Who will police the police?</title>
	<author>ashanin</author>
	<datestamp>1256818680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who will fix the bugs in the ClearView program?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who will fix the bugs in the ClearView program ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who will fix the bugs in the ClearView program?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918659</id>
	<title>Re:No Silver Bullet</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1256821620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless they've solved strong AI and plan to just sit in and have the AI write perfect software for them so they can rake in the licensing fees until someone else figures it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they 've solved strong AI and plan to just sit in and have the AI write perfect software for them so they can rake in the licensing fees until someone else figures it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they've solved strong AI and plan to just sit in and have the AI write perfect software for them so they can rake in the licensing fees until someone else figures it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919867</id>
	<title>Re:It's interesting, but software should "expire".</title>
	<author>yanyan</author>
	<datestamp>1256829780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Missing, old, or obsolete functionality are not bugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Missing , old , or obsolete functionality are not bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Missing, old, or obsolete functionality are not bugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923319</id>
	<title>Re:Occam's Razor</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1256915460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The binary on disk may not change, particularly if it's a running program that's exploited.  In fact, the binary image loaded into memory may not change, either.  An exploit might be as simple as getting a program into an 'impossible state' through the use of a buffer overflow.  Checking the binary in disk, or even the binary image in memory, will not detect this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The binary on disk may not change , particularly if it 's a running program that 's exploited .
In fact , the binary image loaded into memory may not change , either .
An exploit might be as simple as getting a program into an 'impossible state ' through the use of a buffer overflow .
Checking the binary in disk , or even the binary image in memory , will not detect this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The binary on disk may not change, particularly if it's a running program that's exploited.
In fact, the binary image loaded into memory may not change, either.
An exploit might be as simple as getting a program into an 'impossible state' through the use of a buffer overflow.
Checking the binary in disk, or even the binary image in memory, will not detect this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921887</id>
	<title>Is not a Bug. Is a Feature</title>
	<author>Tuqui</author>
	<datestamp>1256901840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is not a Bug. Is a Feature"<br>What can I do If this program starts to delete all my "features"?.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is not a Bug .
Is a Feature " What can I do If this program starts to delete all my " features " ? .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is not a Bug.
Is a Feature"What can I do If this program starts to delete all my "features"?.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920057</id>
	<title>We've tested it!</title>
	<author>neo00</author>
	<datestamp>1256831400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
To prove the correctness of ClearView, we ran it against itself, and found no bugs, no vulnerabilities,.... nothing at all!</htmltext>
<tokenext>To prove the correctness of ClearView , we ran it against itself , and found no bugs , no vulnerabilities,.... nothing at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
To prove the correctness of ClearView, we ran it against itself, and found no bugs, no vulnerabilities,.... nothing at all!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918401</id>
	<title>Fuck3r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you can. When the distr1butions Crrek, abysmal</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can .
When the distr1butions Crrek , abysmal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can.
When the distr1butions Crrek, abysmal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919769</id>
	<title>Re:clearview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256828940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they know what they are doing?  Then why is it called:</p><p>Research</p><p>If they knew what they were doing it wouldn't really be research would it.</p><p>ALL software has bugs.  Adding more software to fix bugs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... introduces more bugs.</p><p>This doesn't just apply to software, it applies to just about everything, right down to the atoms that make of the universe from our perspective.  As far as we can figure, the universe itself will break down to a state that will no longer support life as we know it.  Adding more layers of protection falls under the laws of diminishing returns, software, hardware, bridges, cars, or molecules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ... they know what they are doing ?
Then why is it called : ResearchIf they knew what they were doing it would n't really be research would it.ALL software has bugs .
Adding more software to fix bugs ... introduces more bugs.This does n't just apply to software , it applies to just about everything , right down to the atoms that make of the universe from our perspective .
As far as we can figure , the universe itself will break down to a state that will no longer support life as we know it .
Adding more layers of protection falls under the laws of diminishing returns , software , hardware , bridges , cars , or molecules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really ... they know what they are doing?
Then why is it called:ResearchIf they knew what they were doing it wouldn't really be research would it.ALL software has bugs.
Adding more software to fix bugs ... introduces more bugs.This doesn't just apply to software, it applies to just about everything, right down to the atoms that make of the universe from our perspective.
As far as we can figure, the universe itself will break down to a state that will no longer support life as we know it.
Adding more layers of protection falls under the laws of diminishing returns, software, hardware, bridges, cars, or molecules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918487</id>
	<title>No Silver Bullet</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1256820720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There has been no silver bullet in Software Engineering, not for attacker and not for defenders. I highly doubt this is one. From the article, I gather that this is actually some kind of macro Design by Contract based self-fixer. This means it is at best just as good as the people writing the contracts. It will however fail for more complex contracts, which are needed frequently in practice, unless it can get over all sorts of theoretical and practical limitations. And it will make behavior non-predictable, since your software could be patched at any time.</p><p>I would say this is a pretty bad idea, both from a security point of view and from a data-integrity and software reliability point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has been no silver bullet in Software Engineering , not for attacker and not for defenders .
I highly doubt this is one .
From the article , I gather that this is actually some kind of macro Design by Contract based self-fixer .
This means it is at best just as good as the people writing the contracts .
It will however fail for more complex contracts , which are needed frequently in practice , unless it can get over all sorts of theoretical and practical limitations .
And it will make behavior non-predictable , since your software could be patched at any time.I would say this is a pretty bad idea , both from a security point of view and from a data-integrity and software reliability point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has been no silver bullet in Software Engineering, not for attacker and not for defenders.
I highly doubt this is one.
From the article, I gather that this is actually some kind of macro Design by Contract based self-fixer.
This means it is at best just as good as the people writing the contracts.
It will however fail for more complex contracts, which are needed frequently in practice, unless it can get over all sorts of theoretical and practical limitations.
And it will make behavior non-predictable, since your software could be patched at any time.I would say this is a pretty bad idea, both from a security point of view and from a data-integrity and software reliability point of view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918313</id>
	<title>Obviously Linux developers aren't human ;-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256819520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"When a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software, it takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systems, according to a report issued by security company Symantec in 2006."</p></div></blockquote><p>This is absolutely correct, so long as one assumes that Windows systems are the only systems, and Linux developers aren't human.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" When a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software , it takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systems , according to a report issued by security company Symantec in 2006 .
" This is absolutely correct , so long as one assumes that Windows systems are the only systems , and Linux developers are n't human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When a potentially harmful vulnerability is discovered in a piece of software, it takes nearly a month on average for human engineers to come up with a fix and to push the fix out to affected systems, according to a report issued by security company Symantec in 2006.
"This is absolutely correct, so long as one assumes that Windows systems are the only systems, and Linux developers aren't human.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29926647</id>
	<title>Oh, GREAT</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1256929680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just what we need, a license for even MORE sloppy coding techniques...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what we need , a license for even MORE sloppy coding techniques.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what we need, a license for even MORE sloppy coding techniques...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918159</id>
	<title>2012</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1256818500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long before "it" becomes self-aware? This is the beginning of the end, folks... By 2012 it'll be all over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before " it " becomes self-aware ?
This is the beginning of the end , folks... By 2012 it 'll be all over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before "it" becomes self-aware?
This is the beginning of the end, folks... By 2012 it'll be all over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918113</id>
	<title>It's interesting, but software should "expire"..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256818260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a good idea, but here's the issue: software isn't meant to be immortal. It's meant to grow, get better, offer more functionality; imagine if all software stopped growing in Word 1.0 or PrintShop Pro? We'd never have all these great alternatives for office products or Photoshop/Gimp/etc.
<br> <br>
This doesn't support innovation and improvement, and that's the cornerstone of technology improvement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good idea , but here 's the issue : software is n't meant to be immortal .
It 's meant to grow , get better , offer more functionality ; imagine if all software stopped growing in Word 1.0 or PrintShop Pro ?
We 'd never have all these great alternatives for office products or Photoshop/Gimp/etc .
This does n't support innovation and improvement , and that 's the cornerstone of technology improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good idea, but here's the issue: software isn't meant to be immortal.
It's meant to grow, get better, offer more functionality; imagine if all software stopped growing in Word 1.0 or PrintShop Pro?
We'd never have all these great alternatives for office products or Photoshop/Gimp/etc.
This doesn't support innovation and improvement, and that's the cornerstone of technology improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921657</id>
	<title>Re:This really deserves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256897400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Rinard talking about an immortal program, it just begs for this:</p><p><i>Look at you, hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. <b>How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?</b> </i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Rinard talking about an immortal program , it just begs for this : Look at you , hacker .
A pathetic creature of meat and bone , panting and sweating as you run through my corridors .
How can you challenge a perfect , immortal machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Rinard talking about an immortal program, it just begs for this:Look at you, hacker.
A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors.
How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine? </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29924083</id>
	<title>Unabashed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256918940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Martin Rinard, unabashed?  I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Martin Rinard , unabashed ?
I 'm shocked , absolutely shocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Martin Rinard, unabashed?
I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918457</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Slashdot summary, as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256820480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The program does not really "fix software bugs" at all.  What it does is notice if a program starts taking an abnormal code path.  The "normality" of a path is based on how the program operates.  If a program starts taking an abnormal path then it is terminated.<br> <br>
This is good in preventing an attack or code injection.  But as far as bug fixing nothing could be further from the truth.  Some developer still needs to look at the assembly generated to identify the bad path taken, find that place in the code, figure out how the program got there, apply a fix, test the fix, then deploy the new application.  If anything this is a QA tool for software to avoid attacks.<br> <br>
A valuable tool for exposing bugs.  Bug as far as actually improving software I do not see it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The program does not really " fix software bugs " at all .
What it does is notice if a program starts taking an abnormal code path .
The " normality " of a path is based on how the program operates .
If a program starts taking an abnormal path then it is terminated .
This is good in preventing an attack or code injection .
But as far as bug fixing nothing could be further from the truth .
Some developer still needs to look at the assembly generated to identify the bad path taken , find that place in the code , figure out how the program got there , apply a fix , test the fix , then deploy the new application .
If anything this is a QA tool for software to avoid attacks .
A valuable tool for exposing bugs .
Bug as far as actually improving software I do not see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The program does not really "fix software bugs" at all.
What it does is notice if a program starts taking an abnormal code path.
The "normality" of a path is based on how the program operates.
If a program starts taking an abnormal path then it is terminated.
This is good in preventing an attack or code injection.
But as far as bug fixing nothing could be further from the truth.
Some developer still needs to look at the assembly generated to identify the bad path taken, find that place in the code, figure out how the program got there, apply a fix, test the fix, then deploy the new application.
If anything this is a QA tool for software to avoid attacks.
A valuable tool for exposing bugs.
Bug as far as actually improving software I do not see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918185</id>
	<title>If humans did the same..!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256818680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The very first time ClearView encounters an exploit it closes the program and begins analyzing the binary, searching for a patch that could have stopped the error.</p></div><p>Think of how much bullshit would go out of business if people were to do the same thing (i.e. sit down and think it over) when presented with some unusual idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The very first time ClearView encounters an exploit it closes the program and begins analyzing the binary , searching for a patch that could have stopped the error.Think of how much bullshit would go out of business if people were to do the same thing ( i.e .
sit down and think it over ) when presented with some unusual idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very first time ClearView encounters an exploit it closes the program and begins analyzing the binary, searching for a patch that could have stopped the error.Think of how much bullshit would go out of business if people were to do the same thing (i.e.
sit down and think it over) when presented with some unusual idea.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919987</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously Linux developers aren't human ;-)</title>
	<author>Qu4Z</author>
	<datestamp>1256830740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The definition where you update the software, and it no longer has the problem? What definition of "fix" does the rest of the world use?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The definition where you update the software , and it no longer has the problem ?
What definition of " fix " does the rest of the world use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The definition where you update the software, and it no longer has the problem?
What definition of "fix" does the rest of the world use?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923035</id>
	<title>Re:clearview</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1256913900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they knew what they were doing it wouldn't really be research would it.</p></div></blockquote><p>If somebody hadn't done it before then it would be called "search".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they knew what they were doing it would n't really be research would it.If somebody had n't done it before then it would be called " search " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they knew what they were doing it wouldn't really be research would it.If somebody hadn't done it before then it would be called "search".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919841</id>
	<title>Re:clearview</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1256829540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why attack the programs it is patching when you could hit Clearview and gain the ability to hijack everything it is patching?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Because hopefully you're running Clearview in your development environment, not a production one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why attack the programs it is patching when you could hit Clearview and gain the ability to hijack everything it is patching ?
Because hopefully you 're running Clearview in your development environment , not a production one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why attack the programs it is patching when you could hit Clearview and gain the ability to hijack everything it is patching?
Because hopefully you're running Clearview in your development environment, not a production one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920691</id>
	<title>FUD</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1256838360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,\_uncertainty\_and\_doubt" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">FUD</a> [wikipedia.org] is applied to <i>proprietary</i> software vendors, they <i>fear</i> that disclosing their <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">software bugs</a> [mozilla.org] might dilute their <i>credibility</i> among customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If FUD [ wikipedia.org ] is applied to proprietary software vendors , they fear that disclosing their software bugs [ mozilla.org ] might dilute their credibility among customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If FUD [wikipedia.org] is applied to proprietary software vendors, they fear that disclosing their software bugs [mozilla.org] might dilute their credibility among customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918069</id>
	<title>One might have the question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256817960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was it ever applied to itself?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and did it gain conciousness?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was it ever applied to itself ?
... and did it gain conciousness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was it ever applied to itself?
... and did it gain conciousness?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311</id>
	<title>Did they use that tool to develop that tool?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256819520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My friend developed an automatic code quality estimation program for his masters thesis. It will basically find average the number of lines per function, ratio of code to comment, and other such metrics and give a letter grade to the code. The fiendish prof announced that he will run that code through itself. Whatever letter grade it spits out will be his thesis grade. He got a D. He begged and cried and threw a hissy fit and wangled a B and scraped through the degree.<p>

I wonder if we should turn that software loose on itself and see what it finds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend developed an automatic code quality estimation program for his masters thesis .
It will basically find average the number of lines per function , ratio of code to comment , and other such metrics and give a letter grade to the code .
The fiendish prof announced that he will run that code through itself .
Whatever letter grade it spits out will be his thesis grade .
He got a D. He begged and cried and threw a hissy fit and wangled a B and scraped through the degree .
I wonder if we should turn that software loose on itself and see what it finds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend developed an automatic code quality estimation program for his masters thesis.
It will basically find average the number of lines per function, ratio of code to comment, and other such metrics and give a letter grade to the code.
The fiendish prof announced that he will run that code through itself.
Whatever letter grade it spits out will be his thesis grade.
He got a D. He begged and cried and threw a hissy fit and wangled a B and scraped through the degree.
I wonder if we should turn that software loose on itself and see what it finds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923405</id>
	<title>Re:...an immortal, invulnerable program...</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1256915940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would try, but I put in a "20 Goto 10" line after it and am still waiting for the loop to finish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would try , but I put in a " 20 Goto 10 " line after it and am still waiting for the loop to finish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would try, but I put in a "20 Goto 10" line after it and am still waiting for the loop to finish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29933471</id>
	<title>Interesting use of ClearView in hacker PoV</title>
	<author>zukinux</author>
	<datestamp>1256993460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting use of ClearView in hacker point of view, the program can be patched to not change the binaries, but just to write which places seem vulnerable, and try to attack those vectors of input to gain a zero-day attack on a program which other fuzzers didn't seem to detect those input errors, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting use of ClearView in hacker point of view , the program can be patched to not change the binaries , but just to write which places seem vulnerable , and try to attack those vectors of input to gain a zero-day attack on a program which other fuzzers did n't seem to detect those input errors , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting use of ClearView in hacker point of view, the program can be patched to not change the binaries, but just to write which places seem vulnerable, and try to attack those vectors of input to gain a zero-day attack on a program which other fuzzers didn't seem to detect those input errors, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918111</id>
	<title>...an immortal, invulnerable program...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256818260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone cracked "Hello World" yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone cracked " Hello World " yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone cracked "Hello World" yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920615</id>
	<title>Re:Why owuld you need to access the source</title>
	<author>Alpha830RulZ</author>
	<datestamp>1256837220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>paff.  People have been doing this with SuperZap on mainframe code for 30 years. Kids.</p><p>Now get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>paff .
People have been doing this with SuperZap on mainframe code for 30 years .
Kids.Now get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>paff.
People have been doing this with SuperZap on mainframe code for 30 years.
Kids.Now get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920185</id>
	<title>Re:clearview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Employ use of Dog Curtains</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Employ use of Dog Curtains</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Employ use of Dog Curtains</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919883</id>
	<title>Digital Signatures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.</p></div></blockquote><p>So it patches binaries thus rendering the digital signature invalid. This makes your system more vulnerable to attacks that modify binaries maliciously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patches are applied directly to the binary , bypassing the source code.So it patches binaries thus rendering the digital signature invalid .
This makes your system more vulnerable to attacks that modify binaries maliciously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.So it patches binaries thus rendering the digital signature invalid.
This makes your system more vulnerable to attacks that modify binaries maliciously.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920199</id>
	<title>User error</title>
	<author>TSPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1256832660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The program will just realise that all programs break because of user inputs, and will patch programs so users can't interact with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The program will just realise that all programs break because of user inputs , and will patch programs so users ca n't interact with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The program will just realise that all programs break because of user inputs, and will patch programs so users can't interact with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919805</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use that tool to develop that tool?</title>
	<author>Mike610544</author>
	<datestamp>1256829300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It will basically find average the number of lines per function, ratio of code to comment, and other such metrics and give a letter grade to the code.</p></div><p> <tt><nobr> <wbr></nobr>//<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// Are <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// two<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// numbers<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// equal?<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>//<br>
int is\_equal(int a, int b) {<br>
    if ((a = b)) {<br>
        return 1;<br>
    }<br>
    return 0;<br>
}<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// This <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// function <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// only <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// takes<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// up <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// 6<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// lines<br>
</tt> <br>
Do I get an A?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will basically find average the number of lines per function , ratio of code to comment , and other such metrics and give a letter grade to the code .
// // Are // two // numbers // equal ?
// int is \ _equal ( int a , int b ) { if ( ( a = b ) ) { return 1 ; } return 0 ; } // This // function // only // takes // up // 6 // lines Do I get an A ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will basically find average the number of lines per function, ratio of code to comment, and other such metrics and give a letter grade to the code.
// // Are  // two // numbers // equal?
//
int is\_equal(int a, int b) {
    if ((a = b)) {
        return 1;
    }
    return 0;
} // This  // function  // only  // takes // up  // 6 // lines
 
Do I get an A?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29926447</id>
	<title>Re:Next step: CPUs that do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256928900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, I <em>don't</em> want my CPU to say that. Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I do n't want my CPU to say that .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I don't want my CPU to say that.
Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919237</id>
	<title>Ridiculous!</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1256824740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a bunch of crapola.</p><p>Finding and fixing bugs, as any programmer knows, is anything but a simple and mechanical procedure.</p><p>About all ClearView can do is go "Oh,  the stack has been bashed, let's NOP out the call to this code"</p><p>Compare this to the amount of work to find and fix an off-by-one error or an unset pointer.</p><p>There is no comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of crapola.Finding and fixing bugs , as any programmer knows , is anything but a simple and mechanical procedure.About all ClearView can do is go " Oh , the stack has been bashed , let 's NOP out the call to this code " Compare this to the amount of work to find and fix an off-by-one error or an unset pointer.There is no comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of crapola.Finding and fixing bugs, as any programmer knows, is anything but a simple and mechanical procedure.About all ClearView can do is go "Oh,  the stack has been bashed, let's NOP out the call to this code"Compare this to the amount of work to find and fix an off-by-one error or an unset pointer.There is no comparison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918287</id>
	<title>Re:I sure wouldn't</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1256819340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Error - Stack recursion.  Head asploding!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Error - Stack recursion .
Head asploding !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Error - Stack recursion.
Head asploding!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918083</id>
	<title>MS will probably kill it</title>
	<author>vawarayer</author>
	<datestamp>1256818080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another interesting project that Microsoft will probably buy out and kill in the egg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another interesting project that Microsoft will probably buy out and kill in the egg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another interesting project that Microsoft will probably buy out and kill in the egg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29956114</id>
	<title>Re:Sensationalism ruined it for me</title>
	<author>grumpy\_old\_troll</author>
	<datestamp>1257161520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it happens live, on the server where a problem was observed, then it dodges the whole bureaucratic hell problem, and puts a hacky patch up immediately.</p><p>It's not a real fix, of course, it's just a dodge for an observed, live vulnerability.  At least maybe your computer won't be a botnet node in the meantime, if you're alert enough to notice the takeover, nor will your website be down.</p><p>Maybe you can even get it to generate some input based on your vulnerability, to more easily reproduce your problem, and a hint that links to the symbol file so you can see where it went wrong.  If that's possible, you'd give half the problems a potentially quicker trip through the verification queue/trouble ticket queue/triage system, plus you'd cut out most arguments about how it's not reproducible.</p><p>Sounds fairly promising to me, though of course it'll probably have its own problems.  But hey, so does GDB, and yet it still helps make certain problems quicker and easier to nail down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it happens live , on the server where a problem was observed , then it dodges the whole bureaucratic hell problem , and puts a hacky patch up immediately.It 's not a real fix , of course , it 's just a dodge for an observed , live vulnerability .
At least maybe your computer wo n't be a botnet node in the meantime , if you 're alert enough to notice the takeover , nor will your website be down.Maybe you can even get it to generate some input based on your vulnerability , to more easily reproduce your problem , and a hint that links to the symbol file so you can see where it went wrong .
If that 's possible , you 'd give half the problems a potentially quicker trip through the verification queue/trouble ticket queue/triage system , plus you 'd cut out most arguments about how it 's not reproducible.Sounds fairly promising to me , though of course it 'll probably have its own problems .
But hey , so does GDB , and yet it still helps make certain problems quicker and easier to nail down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it happens live, on the server where a problem was observed, then it dodges the whole bureaucratic hell problem, and puts a hacky patch up immediately.It's not a real fix, of course, it's just a dodge for an observed, live vulnerability.
At least maybe your computer won't be a botnet node in the meantime, if you're alert enough to notice the takeover, nor will your website be down.Maybe you can even get it to generate some input based on your vulnerability, to more easily reproduce your problem, and a hint that links to the symbol file so you can see where it went wrong.
If that's possible, you'd give half the problems a potentially quicker trip through the verification queue/trouble ticket queue/triage system, plus you'd cut out most arguments about how it's not reproducible.Sounds fairly promising to me, though of course it'll probably have its own problems.
But hey, so does GDB, and yet it still helps make certain problems quicker and easier to nail down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919273</id>
	<title>oh, I've seen this before somewhere</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1256824980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When something goes wrong, ClearView detects the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to force the software to follow the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) ClearView analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, ClearView rejects it and tries another.</p></div><p>reminded me of another ingenious software application:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>The first matrix I designed was quite<br>naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless,<br>sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental<br>failure.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9\% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.</p></div><p>So, the solution to any program failure is creation of Zion, (the rest of the idea here is left to the imagination of the reader.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : When something goes wrong , ClearView detects the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated .
It then comes up with several potential patches designed to force the software to follow the violated rules .
( The patches are applied directly to the binary , bypassing the source code .
) ClearView analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work , then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness .
If additional rules are violated , or if a patch causes the system to crash , ClearView rejects it and tries another.reminded me of another ingenious software application : Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix .
You are the eventuality of an anomaly , which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision .
While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it , it is not unexpected , and thus not beyond a measure of control .
Which has led you , inexorably , here .
...The first matrix I designed was quitenaturally perfect , it was a work of art , flawless,sublime .
A triumph equaled only by its monumentalfailure .
...she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9 \ % of all test subjects accepted the program , as long as they were given a choice , even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level .
While this answer functioned , it was obviously fundamentally flawed , thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly , that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself .
Ergo , those that refused the program , while a minority , if unchecked , would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.So , the solution to any program failure is creation of Zion , ( the rest of the idea here is left to the imagination of the reader .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:When something goes wrong, ClearView detects the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated.
It then comes up with several potential patches designed to force the software to follow the violated rules.
(The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.
) ClearView analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness.
If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, ClearView rejects it and tries another.reminded me of another ingenious software application:Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix.
You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision.
While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control.
Which has led you, inexorably, here.
...The first matrix I designed was quitenaturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless,sublime.
A triumph equaled only by its monumentalfailure.
...she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9\% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level.
While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself.
Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.So, the solution to any program failure is creation of Zion, (the rest of the idea here is left to the imagination of the reader.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920569</id>
	<title>If the bug isn't fixed it the source code</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1256836800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the bug isn't fixed in the source code, the bug isn't fixed.  This solution becomes a crutch upon which poor programmers depend until everything stops working altogether.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the bug is n't fixed in the source code , the bug is n't fixed .
This solution becomes a crutch upon which poor programmers depend until everything stops working altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the bug isn't fixed in the source code, the bug isn't fixed.
This solution becomes a crutch upon which poor programmers depend until everything stops working altogether.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919287</id>
	<title>Virus Scanner</title>
	<author>allcoolnameswheretak</author>
	<datestamp>1256825100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds just like the way your everyday virus scanner works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds just like the way your everyday virus scanner works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds just like the way your everyday virus scanner works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919917</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use that tool to develop that tool?</title>
	<author>Corporate Drone</author>
	<datestamp>1256830140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude deserves to fail: when confronted, he shoulda countered that he used his program as a baseline: the program that minimally gets a "pass", when run through the analyzer.  Any MS student who can't BS his thesis prof... *sigh*...!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude deserves to fail : when confronted , he shoulda countered that he used his program as a baseline : the program that minimally gets a " pass " , when run through the analyzer .
Any MS student who ca n't BS his thesis prof... * sigh * ... !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude deserves to fail: when confronted, he shoulda countered that he used his program as a baseline: the program that minimally gets a "pass", when run through the analyzer.
Any MS student who can't BS his thesis prof... *sigh*...!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919227</id>
	<title>Be skeptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256824680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Martin Rinard is a talented man with the largest ego in academia.  Of course he is "unabashed"; he's never been "abashed" for a moment in his life.  Every research project Rinard has completed has been the one he claimed would scoop and shut down all other computer scientists' efforts.  Take any claims he makes with a big grain of salt.  It's not that he's a fraud, it's just that history shows he isn't nearly as godlike as he thinks or claims to be.</p><p>Posted anonymously because I don't need Rinard as an enemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Martin Rinard is a talented man with the largest ego in academia .
Of course he is " unabashed " ; he 's never been " abashed " for a moment in his life .
Every research project Rinard has completed has been the one he claimed would scoop and shut down all other computer scientists ' efforts .
Take any claims he makes with a big grain of salt .
It 's not that he 's a fraud , it 's just that history shows he is n't nearly as godlike as he thinks or claims to be.Posted anonymously because I do n't need Rinard as an enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Martin Rinard is a talented man with the largest ego in academia.
Of course he is "unabashed"; he's never been "abashed" for a moment in his life.
Every research project Rinard has completed has been the one he claimed would scoop and shut down all other computer scientists' efforts.
Take any claims he makes with a big grain of salt.
It's not that he's a fraud, it's just that history shows he isn't nearly as godlike as he thinks or claims to be.Posted anonymously because I don't need Rinard as an enemy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919317</id>
	<title>Martin Rinard a prof?</title>
	<author>McNihil</author>
	<datestamp>1256825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice's\_theorem" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice's\_theorem</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Can I get my star now?</p><p>People this is what we get when people grow up with Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice 's \ _theorem [ wikipedia.org ] Can I get my star now ? People this is what we get when people grow up with Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice's\_theorem [wikipedia.org]Can I get my star now?People this is what we get when people grow up with Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920991</id>
	<title>Re:I sure wouldn't</title>
	<author>pinkushun</author>
	<datestamp>1256843760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would obviously bring SkyNet into existence!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would obviously bring SkyNet into existence !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would obviously bring SkyNet into existence!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923197</id>
	<title>Re:No Silver Bullet</title>
	<author>Handlarn</author>
	<datestamp>1256914860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you'd just have added another programming layer since you'd still have to tell the computer exactly what type of software you want it to write. Really not that different from a compiler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you 'd just have added another programming layer since you 'd still have to tell the computer exactly what type of software you want it to write .
Really not that different from a compiler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you'd just have added another programming layer since you'd still have to tell the computer exactly what type of software you want it to write.
Really not that different from a compiler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918067</id>
	<title>I sure wouldn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256817960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>run this software before running ClearView on it first.  Imagine what this could do if it had a bug in its code!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>run this software before running ClearView on it first .
Imagine what this could do if it had a bug in its code !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>run this software before running ClearView on it first.
Imagine what this could do if it had a bug in its code!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918885</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use that tool to develop that tool?</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1256822640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Fiendish" prof?  If this is even a true story, it rates a "duhh!"  Of course he should have ran his analyzer on his own code..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fiendish " prof ?
If this is even a true story , it rates a " duhh !
" Of course he should have ran his analyzer on his own code. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Fiendish" prof?
If this is even a true story, it rates a "duhh!
"  Of course he should have ran his analyzer on his own code..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918533</id>
	<title>Good idea...</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1256821020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>terrible name.  Come on ClearView is the best you could come up with?</htmltext>
<tokenext>terrible name .
Come on ClearView is the best you could come up with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>terrible name.
Come on ClearView is the best you could come up with?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921005</id>
	<title>Re:No Silver Bullet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256843940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was this one episode of Star Trek:TNG that used a mathematical shape to pose an unsolvable problem. The borg named Hue would look at it, and unable to solve it would store the mathematical shape until it can be processed when reintegrated with the borg. Once the collective got it, it would pose an unsolvable problem that would cause the borg to allocate all it's resources to try and solve the shape.</p><p>How come programs aren't written to limit themselves? Like if a DoS occurs or some null pointer exception, it will realize that trying to solve the problem would render the system unusable to other processes, and halt the program until other resources become available? I don't mean window's "program is unresponsive" - more along the lines of a Quality Assurance tool. If a program needs on average a certain number of compute cycles, and the program runs out of bounds, then the program will self-check it's data for errors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was this one episode of Star Trek : TNG that used a mathematical shape to pose an unsolvable problem .
The borg named Hue would look at it , and unable to solve it would store the mathematical shape until it can be processed when reintegrated with the borg .
Once the collective got it , it would pose an unsolvable problem that would cause the borg to allocate all it 's resources to try and solve the shape.How come programs are n't written to limit themselves ?
Like if a DoS occurs or some null pointer exception , it will realize that trying to solve the problem would render the system unusable to other processes , and halt the program until other resources become available ?
I do n't mean window 's " program is unresponsive " - more along the lines of a Quality Assurance tool .
If a program needs on average a certain number of compute cycles , and the program runs out of bounds , then the program will self-check it 's data for errors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was this one episode of Star Trek:TNG that used a mathematical shape to pose an unsolvable problem.
The borg named Hue would look at it, and unable to solve it would store the mathematical shape until it can be processed when reintegrated with the borg.
Once the collective got it, it would pose an unsolvable problem that would cause the borg to allocate all it's resources to try and solve the shape.How come programs aren't written to limit themselves?
Like if a DoS occurs or some null pointer exception, it will realize that trying to solve the problem would render the system unusable to other processes, and halt the program until other resources become available?
I don't mean window's "program is unresponsive" - more along the lines of a Quality Assurance tool.
If a program needs on average a certain number of compute cycles, and the program runs out of bounds, then the program will self-check it's data for errors?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921977</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use that tool to develop that tool?</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1256903100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fiendish prof announced that he will run that code through itself. Whatever letter grade it spits out will be his thesis grade.</p></div><p>The even more fiendish student submits the following code:<br>

<tt>
int main(int argc, char **argv)<br>
{<br>
  printf("A\n");<br>
}<br>
</tt>
Of course, with lots of fluff around it to make it less obvious...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fiendish prof announced that he will run that code through itself .
Whatever letter grade it spits out will be his thesis grade.The even more fiendish student submits the following code : int main ( int argc , char * * argv ) { printf ( " A \ n " ) ; } Of course , with lots of fluff around it to make it less obvious.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fiendish prof announced that he will run that code through itself.
Whatever letter grade it spits out will be his thesis grade.The even more fiendish student submits the following code:


int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
  printf("A\n");
}

Of course, with lots of fluff around it to make it less obvious...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919681</id>
	<title>Yea, cause this hasn't been tried before ...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256828220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, why the hell is this news on slashdot?</p><p>This certainly isn't a new idea, and it'll meet the same fate as existing ideas, a quick death as someone figures out how to use it to cause more damage than good.</p><p>How does it know the difference between intentional and accidental?  It doesn't.  This is why compilers can't fix programmer bugs, they can at best warn or error on them.  The compiler really is the most likely part of the process to find and fix any bugs that can be automagically found in a closed system.</p><p>'find a potential patch' ?</p><p>I have that, its the 'Check for updates' button.</p><p>Yes I realize that its trying to detect runtime errors and correct those, but anyone with half a clue about CS knows multiple reasons why this simply doesn't work.  The first and foremost reason being that it will take something intentional, classify it as a bug and 'fix' it.  In effect breaking it.  The only way to fix this is to keep a big exception list that constantly needs updated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which will also have bugs.  Rinse, repeat for the rest of eternity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , why the hell is this news on slashdot ? This certainly is n't a new idea , and it 'll meet the same fate as existing ideas , a quick death as someone figures out how to use it to cause more damage than good.How does it know the difference between intentional and accidental ?
It does n't .
This is why compilers ca n't fix programmer bugs , they can at best warn or error on them .
The compiler really is the most likely part of the process to find and fix any bugs that can be automagically found in a closed system .
'find a potential patch ' ? I have that , its the 'Check for updates ' button.Yes I realize that its trying to detect runtime errors and correct those , but anyone with half a clue about CS knows multiple reasons why this simply does n't work .
The first and foremost reason being that it will take something intentional , classify it as a bug and 'fix ' it .
In effect breaking it .
The only way to fix this is to keep a big exception list that constantly needs updated ... which will also have bugs .
Rinse , repeat for the rest of eternity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, why the hell is this news on slashdot?This certainly isn't a new idea, and it'll meet the same fate as existing ideas, a quick death as someone figures out how to use it to cause more damage than good.How does it know the difference between intentional and accidental?
It doesn't.
This is why compilers can't fix programmer bugs, they can at best warn or error on them.
The compiler really is the most likely part of the process to find and fix any bugs that can be automagically found in a closed system.
'find a potential patch' ?I have that, its the 'Check for updates' button.Yes I realize that its trying to detect runtime errors and correct those, but anyone with half a clue about CS knows multiple reasons why this simply doesn't work.
The first and foremost reason being that it will take something intentional, classify it as a bug and 'fix' it.
In effect breaking it.
The only way to fix this is to keep a big exception list that constantly needs updated ... which will also have bugs.
Rinse, repeat for the rest of eternity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919381</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256825940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this already done with the "Hello World" program?</p><p>But seriously all software depends on hardware, you would really amaze me if you had a contiguous area of current that kept on fixing itself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this already done with the " Hello World " program ? But seriously all software depends on hardware , you would really amaze me if you had a contiguous area of current that kept on fixing itself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this already done with the "Hello World" program?But seriously all software depends on hardware, you would really amaze me if you had a contiguous area of current that kept on fixing itself</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29922339</id>
	<title>The actual paper.</title>
	<author>ROBOKATZ</author>
	<datestamp>1256908380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It might help to read <a href="http://groups.csail.mit.edu/pag/pubs/automatic-patching-sosp2009-abstract.html" title="mit.edu">the actual paper</a> [mit.edu] instead of some hand-waving article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might help to read the actual paper [ mit.edu ] instead of some hand-waving article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might help to read the actual paper [mit.edu] instead of some hand-waving article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919627</id>
	<title>No good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It rates far too high on the <a href="http://xkcd.com/534/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">thisAlgorithmBecomingSkynet</a> [xkcd.com] index.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It rates far too high on the thisAlgorithmBecomingSkynet [ xkcd.com ] index .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It rates far too high on the thisAlgorithmBecomingSkynet [xkcd.com] index.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918935</id>
	<title>Masters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256822880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This type of stuff, like your friend did, has been written since the 1960s. It doesn't really work, unless the input code is written by slackers or idiots.</p><p>I'm fairly certain I've seen this type of code written in a few lines of perl.</p><p>A programmer with skill will KNOW how to write maintainable, readable, reusable code and simply do it.  If fact, when pressured to not follow best practices, I suspect he will call in sick a few days to "help" management come to their senses.</p><p>If someone actually earned a masters from this, that graduate program should be laughed out of existence.  OR, you are explaining it very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This type of stuff , like your friend did , has been written since the 1960s .
It does n't really work , unless the input code is written by slackers or idiots.I 'm fairly certain I 've seen this type of code written in a few lines of perl.A programmer with skill will KNOW how to write maintainable , readable , reusable code and simply do it .
If fact , when pressured to not follow best practices , I suspect he will call in sick a few days to " help " management come to their senses.If someone actually earned a masters from this , that graduate program should be laughed out of existence .
OR , you are explaining it very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This type of stuff, like your friend did, has been written since the 1960s.
It doesn't really work, unless the input code is written by slackers or idiots.I'm fairly certain I've seen this type of code written in a few lines of perl.A programmer with skill will KNOW how to write maintainable, readable, reusable code and simply do it.
If fact, when pressured to not follow best practices, I suspect he will call in sick a few days to "help" management come to their senses.If someone actually earned a masters from this, that graduate program should be laughed out of existence.
OR, you are explaining it very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919203</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Slashdot summary, as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256824560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either you didn't read the article, or you have a massive reading comprehension problem.  Clearview actually creates patches to fix problems that it identifies.  Note the following passage from the article:</p><p>"For seven of the attacking team's approaches, <b>ClearView created patches</b> that corrected the underlying errors. In all cases, it discarded corrections that had negative side effects. On average, ClearView came up with a successful patch within about five minutes of its first exposure to an attack."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either you did n't read the article , or you have a massive reading comprehension problem .
Clearview actually creates patches to fix problems that it identifies .
Note the following passage from the article : " For seven of the attacking team 's approaches , ClearView created patches that corrected the underlying errors .
In all cases , it discarded corrections that had negative side effects .
On average , ClearView came up with a successful patch within about five minutes of its first exposure to an attack .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either you didn't read the article, or you have a massive reading comprehension problem.
Clearview actually creates patches to fix problems that it identifies.
Note the following passage from the article:"For seven of the attacking team's approaches, ClearView created patches that corrected the underlying errors.
In all cases, it discarded corrections that had negative side effects.
On average, ClearView came up with a successful patch within about five minutes of its first exposure to an attack.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919783</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use that tool to develop that tool?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256829060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More appropriate would be to give your friend a F as he seems to have entirely missed the point.  If he had a clue, he would have added a check to itself to always give itself an A, maybe throw in a joke about it along the way.</p><p>He didn't deserve a D, that much is clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More appropriate would be to give your friend a F as he seems to have entirely missed the point .
If he had a clue , he would have added a check to itself to always give itself an A , maybe throw in a joke about it along the way.He did n't deserve a D , that much is clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More appropriate would be to give your friend a F as he seems to have entirely missed the point.
If he had a clue, he would have added a check to itself to always give itself an A, maybe throw in a joke about it along the way.He didn't deserve a D, that much is clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920121</id>
	<title>Re:...an immortal, invulnerable program...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256831880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Has anyone cracked "Hello World" yet?</i></p><p>I think someone cracked my "Hello World". It compiled fine but when I ran it, it printed out "Core Dumped".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone cracked " Hello World " yet ? I think someone cracked my " Hello World " .
It compiled fine but when I ran it , it printed out " Core Dumped " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone cracked "Hello World" yet?I think someone cracked my "Hello World".
It compiled fine but when I ran it, it printed out "Core Dumped".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920229</id>
	<title>Re:One might have the question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256833020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, it was, and yes I did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it was , and yes I did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it was, and yes I did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919117</id>
	<title>Wondering if it can be gamed</title>
	<author>shoor</author>
	<datestamp>1256824020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, if you have a binary image of a program in some read only place, you could just compare to the running/working image to see if it were compromised and reload the original if it were.  Admittedly, that can be a lot of work and ClearView might be more efficient.  But, if it's just checking the behavior of the program, what's to keep hackers from getting their own copies of ClearView and figuring out how to game it, just like any other detection software.  That is, making hacked programs perform so that they seem to be well behaved.  Of course, if the idea is to turn the compromised software into a bot that is continuously spewing stuff out through the ethernet port, that might be hard to hide.  But would you need ClearView to check that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , if you have a binary image of a program in some read only place , you could just compare to the running/working image to see if it were compromised and reload the original if it were .
Admittedly , that can be a lot of work and ClearView might be more efficient .
But , if it 's just checking the behavior of the program , what 's to keep hackers from getting their own copies of ClearView and figuring out how to game it , just like any other detection software .
That is , making hacked programs perform so that they seem to be well behaved .
Of course , if the idea is to turn the compromised software into a bot that is continuously spewing stuff out through the ethernet port , that might be hard to hide .
But would you need ClearView to check that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, if you have a binary image of a program in some read only place, you could just compare to the running/working image to see if it were compromised and reload the original if it were.
Admittedly, that can be a lot of work and ClearView might be more efficient.
But, if it's just checking the behavior of the program, what's to keep hackers from getting their own copies of ClearView and figuring out how to game it, just like any other detection software.
That is, making hacked programs perform so that they seem to be well behaved.
Of course, if the idea is to turn the compromised software into a bot that is continuously spewing stuff out through the ethernet port, that might be hard to hide.
But would you need ClearView to check that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918131</id>
	<title>Misleading Slashdot summary, as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256818380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It checks a bunch of identical machines for a set of know bugs, then applies a bunch of predermined patches until one works.</p><p>That's nice, but not what was promised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It checks a bunch of identical machines for a set of know bugs , then applies a bunch of predermined patches until one works.That 's nice , but not what was promised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It checks a bunch of identical machines for a set of know bugs, then applies a bunch of predermined patches until one works.That's nice, but not what was promised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29922799</id>
	<title>Test it on my program, please</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1256912340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the pseudo-code:</p><p><tt><br>begin turings\_revenge<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; this\_will\_crash = find\_errors(turings\_revenge)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; if (this\_will\_crash)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; then<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; terminate\_gracefully();<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; else<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; segfault();<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; end<br>end<br></tt></p><p>So, will it crash, or won't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the pseudo-code : begin turings \ _revenge     this \ _will \ _crash = find \ _errors ( turings \ _revenge )     if ( this \ _will \ _crash )     then         terminate \ _gracefully ( ) ;     else         segfault ( ) ;     endendSo , will it crash , or wo n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the pseudo-code:begin turings\_revenge
    this\_will\_crash = find\_errors(turings\_revenge)
    if (this\_will\_crash)
    then
        terminate\_gracefully();
    else
        segfault();
    endendSo, will it crash, or won't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920359</id>
	<title>link to the complete article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256834460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the complete article has a lot more information:<br>http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/mernst/pubs/automatic-patching-sosp2009.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the complete article has a lot more information : http : //www.cs.washington.edu/homes/mernst/pubs/automatic-patching-sosp2009.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the complete article has a lot more information:http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/mernst/pubs/automatic-patching-sosp2009.pdf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920257</id>
	<title>More promising approaches have been tried</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1256833320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There are more promising approaches, mostly involving some form of checkpointing.  The idea is that when an error is detected, you go back to the previous checkpoint at which things were going well, determine what input caused the problem, reject that input, and continue forward from there.  In some cases, you have a second, different program checking the outputs from the first.  This sort of thing has been used in telephony, and Tandem, before HP acquired it, was big on this sort of thing.
</p><p>
The clever thing to do is to collect the failing cases and, from them, build a model of what triggers the bug. There's been work on automated crash dump analysis that does this sort of thing, at both HP and Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are more promising approaches , mostly involving some form of checkpointing .
The idea is that when an error is detected , you go back to the previous checkpoint at which things were going well , determine what input caused the problem , reject that input , and continue forward from there .
In some cases , you have a second , different program checking the outputs from the first .
This sort of thing has been used in telephony , and Tandem , before HP acquired it , was big on this sort of thing .
The clever thing to do is to collect the failing cases and , from them , build a model of what triggers the bug .
There 's been work on automated crash dump analysis that does this sort of thing , at both HP and Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There are more promising approaches, mostly involving some form of checkpointing.
The idea is that when an error is detected, you go back to the previous checkpoint at which things were going well, determine what input caused the problem, reject that input, and continue forward from there.
In some cases, you have a second, different program checking the outputs from the first.
This sort of thing has been used in telephony, and Tandem, before HP acquired it, was big on this sort of thing.
The clever thing to do is to collect the failing cases and, from them, build a model of what triggers the bug.
There's been work on automated crash dump analysis that does this sort of thing, at both HP and Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29993188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29956114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29929853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29926447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2248246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29956114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29929853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29922799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29926447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919769
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29919841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29923197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2248246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29918091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29993188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29921657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2248246.29920143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
