<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_30_223238</id>
	<title>After 1 Year, Conficker Infects 7M Computers</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256904240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>alphadogg writes <i>"The Conficker worm has passed a dubious milestone. It has now <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/103009-after-one-year-conficker-infects.html">infected more than 7 million computers</a>, security experts estimate. On Thursday, researchers at the volunteer-run Shadowserver Foundation <a href="http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/ANY/InfectionTracking#toc4">logged computers from more than 7 million unique IP addresses</a>, all infected by the known variants of Conficker. They have been able to keep track of Conficker infections by cracking the algorithm the worm uses to look for instructions on the Internet and placing their own 'sinkhole' servers on the Internet domains it is programmed to visit. Conficker has several ways of receiving instructions, so the bad guys have still been able to control PCs, but the sinkhole servers give researchers a good idea how many machines are infected."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>alphadogg writes " The Conficker worm has passed a dubious milestone .
It has now infected more than 7 million computers , security experts estimate .
On Thursday , researchers at the volunteer-run Shadowserver Foundation logged computers from more than 7 million unique IP addresses , all infected by the known variants of Conficker .
They have been able to keep track of Conficker infections by cracking the algorithm the worm uses to look for instructions on the Internet and placing their own 'sinkhole ' servers on the Internet domains it is programmed to visit .
Conficker has several ways of receiving instructions , so the bad guys have still been able to control PCs , but the sinkhole servers give researchers a good idea how many machines are infected .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alphadogg writes "The Conficker worm has passed a dubious milestone.
It has now infected more than 7 million computers, security experts estimate.
On Thursday, researchers at the volunteer-run Shadowserver Foundation logged computers from more than 7 million unique IP addresses, all infected by the known variants of Conficker.
They have been able to keep track of Conficker infections by cracking the algorithm the worm uses to look for instructions on the Internet and placing their own 'sinkhole' servers on the Internet domains it is programmed to visit.
Conficker has several ways of receiving instructions, so the bad guys have still been able to control PCs, but the sinkhole servers give researchers a good idea how many machines are infected.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931401</id>
	<title>Re:Action not words!</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1256915340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The researchers behind this botnet hijack did report to the appropriate people: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GdqoQJa6r4&amp;feature=youtube\_gdata" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GdqoQJa6r4&amp;feature=youtube\_gdata</a> [youtube.com]<br>And they also say counting IP addresses is off by a factor of 10.</p><p>so 7 million IP adddresses really mean 700.000 computers</p><p>Analysing is always the first step, I'm sure they or other people are coming up with something. Like selling their malware remover software<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers behind this botnet hijack did report to the appropriate people : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 2GdqoQJa6r4&amp;feature = youtube \ _gdata [ youtube.com ] And they also say counting IP addresses is off by a factor of 10.so 7 million IP adddresses really mean 700.000 computersAnalysing is always the first step , I 'm sure they or other people are coming up with something .
Like selling their malware remover software ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers behind this botnet hijack did report to the appropriate people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GdqoQJa6r4&amp;feature=youtube\_gdata [youtube.com]And they also say counting IP addresses is off by a factor of 10.so 7 million IP adddresses really mean 700.000 computersAnalysing is always the first step, I'm sure they or other people are coming up with something.
Like selling their malware remover software ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930717</id>
	<title>Action not words!</title>
	<author>basketcase</author>
	<datestamp>1256908800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are these researchers doing anything about it?  Have they handed the IP lists with timestamps over to the appropriate ISPs or corporate network administrators so that the infected systems can be dealt with?  Did they even put up a page where you can check yourself or your network?</p><p>Merely counting the infected is nothing but mental masturbation.  Even the lame government census has moved beyond simply counting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are these researchers doing anything about it ?
Have they handed the IP lists with timestamps over to the appropriate ISPs or corporate network administrators so that the infected systems can be dealt with ?
Did they even put up a page where you can check yourself or your network ? Merely counting the infected is nothing but mental masturbation .
Even the lame government census has moved beyond simply counting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are these researchers doing anything about it?
Have they handed the IP lists with timestamps over to the appropriate ISPs or corporate network administrators so that the infected systems can be dealt with?
Did they even put up a page where you can check yourself or your network?Merely counting the infected is nothing but mental masturbation.
Even the lame government census has moved beyond simply counting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931335</id>
	<title>conficker</title>
	<author>thehostiles</author>
	<datestamp>1256914560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>congratulations conficker!!!
let's throw a party for our obediently waiting for the operator-to-hit-the-big-red-button-soldier-overlords</htmltext>
<tokenext>congratulations conficker ! ! !
let 's throw a party for our obediently waiting for the operator-to-hit-the-big-red-button-soldier-overlords</tokentext>
<sentencetext>congratulations conficker!!!
let's throw a party for our obediently waiting for the operator-to-hit-the-big-red-button-soldier-overlords</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930753</id>
	<title>Research = do not touch.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256909040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they were to take control of a botnet to shut it down, they would be potentially liable for damages.  IANAL, but being liable is not a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were to take control of a botnet to shut it down , they would be potentially liable for damages .
IANAL , but being liable is not a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were to take control of a botnet to shut it down, they would be potentially liable for damages.
IANAL, but being liable is not a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931371</id>
	<title>Hire a nigger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256915040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd sooner hire a known thief!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd sooner hire a known thief !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd sooner hire a known thief!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29933723</id>
	<title>Re:Cleaning job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that if you have a proxy (and you probably do at work), the eye chart is bogus. The proxy will cache successful hits from a clean computer within your network.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that if you have a proxy ( and you probably do at work ) , the eye chart is bogus .
The proxy will cache successful hits from a clean computer within your network .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that if you have a proxy (and you probably do at work), the eye chart is bogus.
The proxy will cache successful hits from a clean computer within your network.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932221</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256924820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I've never seen them apart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 've never seen them apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I've never seen them apart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930775</id>
	<title>Not really 7m at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256909220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone should read the original page, particularly the Introduction and section explaining how to interpret their population numbers.<br>Here's a relevant quote:</p><p>"The daily numbers should represent the potential maximum level of the infection, but in previous test cases usually prove to be much less than that maximum. So, take the range of 25\% to 75\% of the values that we display as the possible infection population and you will be close to the real value."</p><p>So the people actually providing these numbers are really saying that the current number of infections is likely to be between 1,750,000 and 5,250,000.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone should read the original page , particularly the Introduction and section explaining how to interpret their population numbers.Here 's a relevant quote : " The daily numbers should represent the potential maximum level of the infection , but in previous test cases usually prove to be much less than that maximum .
So , take the range of 25 \ % to 75 \ % of the values that we display as the possible infection population and you will be close to the real value .
" So the people actually providing these numbers are really saying that the current number of infections is likely to be between 1,750,000 and 5,250,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone should read the original page, particularly the Introduction and section explaining how to interpret their population numbers.Here's a relevant quote:"The daily numbers should represent the potential maximum level of the infection, but in previous test cases usually prove to be much less than that maximum.
So, take the range of 25\% to 75\% of the values that we display as the possible infection population and you will be close to the real value.
"So the people actually providing these numbers are really saying that the current number of infections is likely to be between 1,750,000 and 5,250,000.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29944372</id>
	<title>Re:Cleaning job</title>
	<author>mhollis</author>
	<datestamp>1257070800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't appear to have infected my Mac.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't appear to have infected my Mac .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't appear to have infected my Mac.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931333</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256914560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's still short of the eight million your mom has infected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's still short of the eight million your mom has infected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's still short of the eight million your mom has infected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932509</id>
	<title>S7ASHB0T SCAREMONGERINGG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256929980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHJEaR</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHJEaR</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHJEaR</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931059</id>
	<title>Conflicker?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1256911380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its name should be Legion by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its name should be Legion by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its name should be Legion by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931409</id>
	<title>Re:Cleaning job</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1256915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, computer virii in SG-1 don't need a network connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , computer virii in SG-1 do n't need a network connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, computer virii in SG-1 don't need a network connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930881</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256910000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, you're saying users can't download malware and install on Unix based systems?  Why not?  The system protects users from installing software?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 're saying users ca n't download malware and install on Unix based systems ?
Why not ?
The system protects users from installing software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you're saying users can't download malware and install on Unix based systems?
Why not?
The system protects users from installing software?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932317</id>
	<title>Re:Cleaning job</title>
	<author>Tjp($)pjT</author>
	<datestamp>1256926200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is likely a legal liability that would crush the researchers. Even if Conficker did the damage the researchers could be held liable because the courts have juries of non-technical people to render "justice". This is why many many technical lawsuits get settled at the last minute. The balance of evidence is continually weighed and after it reaches some presumed tipping point the parties settle. (Well the big guys, small fry are just outspent and they lose).<br>
<br>I'd love to have a reverse DNS service that returned conficker status (and other infections that can be benignly discovered) of the IP so I could give it a 25 point spam boost. That would tip it over for a lot of SPAM I think. (We have a 100 point scale, above 20 is SPAM, so characteristics score negative (good things) some score positive (bad things)) so I'd assume that through trial and error setting that threshold I block a lot more spam... And maybe have more restrictive filtering of access to our servers (dump the infected through a different path of access, maybe more lengthy filtering, more scrutiny, etc.)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is likely a legal liability that would crush the researchers .
Even if Conficker did the damage the researchers could be held liable because the courts have juries of non-technical people to render " justice " .
This is why many many technical lawsuits get settled at the last minute .
The balance of evidence is continually weighed and after it reaches some presumed tipping point the parties settle .
( Well the big guys , small fry are just outspent and they lose ) .
I 'd love to have a reverse DNS service that returned conficker status ( and other infections that can be benignly discovered ) of the IP so I could give it a 25 point spam boost .
That would tip it over for a lot of SPAM I think .
( We have a 100 point scale , above 20 is SPAM , so characteristics score negative ( good things ) some score positive ( bad things ) ) so I 'd assume that through trial and error setting that threshold I block a lot more spam... And maybe have more restrictive filtering of access to our servers ( dump the infected through a different path of access , maybe more lengthy filtering , more scrutiny , etc .
) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is likely a legal liability that would crush the researchers.
Even if Conficker did the damage the researchers could be held liable because the courts have juries of non-technical people to render "justice".
This is why many many technical lawsuits get settled at the last minute.
The balance of evidence is continually weighed and after it reaches some presumed tipping point the parties settle.
(Well the big guys, small fry are just outspent and they lose).
I'd love to have a reverse DNS service that returned conficker status (and other infections that can be benignly discovered) of the IP so I could give it a 25 point spam boost.
That would tip it over for a lot of SPAM I think.
(We have a 100 point scale, above 20 is SPAM, so characteristics score negative (good things) some score positive (bad things)) so I'd assume that through trial and error setting that threshold I block a lot more spam... And maybe have more restrictive filtering of access to our servers (dump the infected through a different path of access, maybe more lengthy filtering, more scrutiny, etc.
)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29933581</id>
	<title>Windows virus devastates complacent idiots</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1256995680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A computer worm that spreads through low security networks, memory sticks, and PCs without the latest security updates is posing a growing threat to <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/01/18/yet-another-windows-virus-devastates-millions-of-complacent-idiots/" title="today.com">users blitheringly stupid enough</a> [today.com] to still think Windows is not ridiculously and unfixably insecure by design.

</p><p>Despite many years&rsquo; warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the absolute minimum it can get away with, millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah, naked, arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying &ldquo;COME AND GET IT.&rdquo;

</p><p>Microsoft cannot believe people have not applied the patch for the problem, just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems. &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t they trust us?&rdquo; asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer.

</p><p>Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed, having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called Darwin,&rdquo; said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge.

</p><p>&ldquo;It can&rsquo;t be stupid if everyone else runs it,&rdquo; said Windows user Joe Beleaguered, who had lost all his email, business files, MP3s and porn again. &ldquo;Macs cost more than Windows PCs.&rdquo;

</p><p>&ldquo;Yes,&rdquo; said Phagge. &ldquo;Yes, they do.&rdquo;

</p><p>Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other, but we can&rsquo;t say we care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A computer worm that spreads through low security networks , memory sticks , and PCs without the latest security updates is posing a growing threat to users blitheringly stupid enough [ today.com ] to still think Windows is not ridiculously and unfixably insecure by design .
Despite many years    warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the absolute minimum it can get away with , millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah , naked , arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying    COME AND GET IT.    Microsoft can not believe people have not applied the patch for the problem , just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems .
   Don    t they trust us ?    asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer .
Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed , having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense .
   There    s a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called Darwin ,    said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge .
   It can    t be stupid if everyone else runs it ,    said Windows user Joe Beleaguered , who had lost all his email , business files , MP3s and porn again .
   Macs cost more than Windows PCs.       Yes ,    said Phagge .
   Yes , they do.    Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other , but we can    t say we care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A computer worm that spreads through low security networks, memory sticks, and PCs without the latest security updates is posing a growing threat to users blitheringly stupid enough [today.com] to still think Windows is not ridiculously and unfixably insecure by design.
Despite many years’ warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the absolute minimum it can get away with, millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah, naked, arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying “COME AND GET IT.”

Microsoft cannot believe people have not applied the patch for the problem, just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems.
“Don’t they trust us?” asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer.
Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed, having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense.
“There’s a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called Darwin,” said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge.
“It can’t be stupid if everyone else runs it,” said Windows user Joe Beleaguered, who had lost all his email, business files, MP3s and porn again.
“Macs cost more than Windows PCs.”

“Yes,” said Phagge.
“Yes, they do.”

Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other, but we can’t say we care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29935421</id>
	<title>Re:I think there is one way</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1257012360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't I read this suggestion elsewhere?  Are you a plegiarist?  WTF?!?!</p><p>Alright, I'm not being fair.  The solution is so obvious, hundreds of people have suggested it here and elsewhere, and thousands more will do so.  But, the obvious, easy, simple solution will never gain traction.  Someone has to make money, or the solution will never be implemented.  I'm afraid we'll have to incorporate a couple charges into the scheme.  Save the children, save the baby seals, and buy a carbon credit, THEN is will work!!</p><p>Mankind is opposed to elegance, after all.  It's GOT to have BLING!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't I read this suggestion elsewhere ?
Are you a plegiarist ?
WTF ? ! ? ! Alright , I 'm not being fair .
The solution is so obvious , hundreds of people have suggested it here and elsewhere , and thousands more will do so .
But , the obvious , easy , simple solution will never gain traction .
Someone has to make money , or the solution will never be implemented .
I 'm afraid we 'll have to incorporate a couple charges into the scheme .
Save the children , save the baby seals , and buy a carbon credit , THEN is will work !
! Mankind is opposed to elegance , after all .
It 's GOT to have BLING !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't I read this suggestion elsewhere?
Are you a plegiarist?
WTF?!?!Alright, I'm not being fair.
The solution is so obvious, hundreds of people have suggested it here and elsewhere, and thousands more will do so.
But, the obvious, easy, simple solution will never gain traction.
Someone has to make money, or the solution will never be implemented.
I'm afraid we'll have to incorporate a couple charges into the scheme.
Save the children, save the baby seals, and buy a carbon credit, THEN is will work!
!Mankind is opposed to elegance, after all.
It's GOT to have BLING!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931111</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256912040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is Slashdot, not Yahoo Answers.  I doubt anyone who frequents this site would read that and think "Oh my!  I'll get to downloading AV2009 right away!"  (and single posts don't come up on Google queries unless they're oddly specific.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Slashdot , not Yahoo Answers .
I doubt anyone who frequents this site would read that and think " Oh my !
I 'll get to downloading AV2009 right away !
" ( and single posts do n't come up on Google queries unless they 're oddly specific .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Slashdot, not Yahoo Answers.
I doubt anyone who frequents this site would read that and think "Oh my!
I'll get to downloading AV2009 right away!
"  (and single posts don't come up on Google queries unless they're oddly specific.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29938249</id>
	<title>7 million computers?</title>
	<author>Maxim Kovalenko</author>
	<datestamp>1256997120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>

heh, they have more installations than every Linux distro combined.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
(and no, installing a new distro every month doesn't count to the Linux total guys, sorry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) )</htmltext>
<tokenext>heh , they have more installations than every Linux distro combined .
; ) ( and no , installing a new distro every month does n't count to the Linux total guys , sorry ; ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

heh, they have more installations than every Linux distro combined.
;)
(and no, installing a new distro every month doesn't count to the Linux total guys, sorry ;) )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29938757</id>
	<title>A lot more than 7m</title>
	<author>sea4ever</author>
	<datestamp>1257001980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>   A good set of these computers which are infected are going to be on dial-up connections, and they might have been offline at the time, also another large set are going to be behind firewalls and what-not which are supposed to prevent whatever on earth the firewalls were originally for, so even though only 7m unique IPs connected, a lot more didn't get the chance. There are probably a lot of 'offline' conficker-infected PCs out there.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Let's hope that it starts using itself as one large cloud-computing system and acts as a tracker to replace TPB.
   and *when* will it upgrade it's host computers to linux? Surely it wants to become stronger.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>A good set of these computers which are infected are going to be on dial-up connections , and they might have been offline at the time , also another large set are going to be behind firewalls and what-not which are supposed to prevent whatever on earth the firewalls were originally for , so even though only 7m unique IPs connected , a lot more did n't get the chance .
There are probably a lot of 'offline ' conficker-infected PCs out there .
: ) Let 's hope that it starts using itself as one large cloud-computing system and acts as a tracker to replace TPB .
and * when * will it upgrade it 's host computers to linux ?
Surely it wants to become stronger .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   A good set of these computers which are infected are going to be on dial-up connections, and they might have been offline at the time, also another large set are going to be behind firewalls and what-not which are supposed to prevent whatever on earth the firewalls were originally for, so even though only 7m unique IPs connected, a lot more didn't get the chance.
There are probably a lot of 'offline' conficker-infected PCs out there.
:) Let's hope that it starts using itself as one large cloud-computing system and acts as a tracker to replace TPB.
and *when* will it upgrade it's host computers to linux?
Surely it wants to become stronger.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931837</id>
	<title>Re:Not really 7m at all</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1256919540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So the people actually providing these numbers are really saying that the current number of infections is likely to be between 1,750,000 and 5,250,000.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Thanks, I feel so much better now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the people actually providing these numbers are really saying that the current number of infections is likely to be between 1,750,000 and 5,250,000 .
Thanks , I feel so much better now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the people actually providing these numbers are really saying that the current number of infections is likely to be between 1,750,000 and 5,250,000.
Thanks, I feel so much better now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930791</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256909280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and nobody's modded this funny yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and nobody 's modded this funny yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and nobody's modded this funny yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931171</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>mattcen</author>
	<datestamp>1256912820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ul>
  <li>A Unix-based operating system (such as OS X or Ubuntu)</li></ul></div><p>
Oh no, didn't you hear? Linux isn't safe any more either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)! <a href="http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/10/27/how-good-is-wine-at-running-windows-software-on-linux-good-enou" title="downloadsquad.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/10/27/how-good-is-wine-at-running-windows-software-on-linux-good-enou</a> [downloadsquad.com]
<br>
<br>
But it's OK, most of those spyware protection programs are available on Linux as well! The link above shows how to install Windows Police Pro!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Unix-based operating system ( such as OS X or Ubuntu ) Oh no , did n't you hear ?
Linux is n't safe any more either : - ) !
http : //www.downloadsquad.com/2009/10/27/how-good-is-wine-at-running-windows-software-on-linux-good-enou [ downloadsquad.com ] But it 's OK , most of those spyware protection programs are available on Linux as well !
The link above shows how to install Windows Police Pro !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  A Unix-based operating system (such as OS X or Ubuntu)
Oh no, didn't you hear?
Linux isn't safe any more either :-)!
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/10/27/how-good-is-wine-at-running-windows-software-on-linux-good-enou [downloadsquad.com]


But it's OK, most of those spyware protection programs are available on Linux as well!
The link above shows how to install Windows Police Pro!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930785</id>
	<title>Re:Cleaning job</title>
	<author>linguizic</author>
	<datestamp>1256909280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't that an episode of Stargate SG-1?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't that an episode of Stargate SG-1 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't that an episode of Stargate SG-1?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931859</id>
	<title>I think there is one way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Figure out how to trace a significant percentage of those IPs to their IP blocks to their ISPs.  Notify the ISPs.  Start a coalition among them to shut off infected customers with a message explaining why and how to fix.   Start an advertising campaign to get public support for this and help pressure ISPs to join even though it is not in their short-term self-interest; sell it to them as good PR at this point.  Ask them to send a coupon to customers who disinfect, with prorated hours to reimburse the customer for time spent disconnected due to the infection; 90\% will never collect on it anyway.  Again, pitch this as good PR.  Ask them to do this again for the next major infection, again for good PR.  (As far as I'm concerned, big companies can crow to the rafters about all their good deeds, as long as they actually do them.)</p><p>It's pretty hard to kill this off with tech, but policy might work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Figure out how to trace a significant percentage of those IPs to their IP blocks to their ISPs .
Notify the ISPs .
Start a coalition among them to shut off infected customers with a message explaining why and how to fix .
Start an advertising campaign to get public support for this and help pressure ISPs to join even though it is not in their short-term self-interest ; sell it to them as good PR at this point .
Ask them to send a coupon to customers who disinfect , with prorated hours to reimburse the customer for time spent disconnected due to the infection ; 90 \ % will never collect on it anyway .
Again , pitch this as good PR .
Ask them to do this again for the next major infection , again for good PR .
( As far as I 'm concerned , big companies can crow to the rafters about all their good deeds , as long as they actually do them .
) It 's pretty hard to kill this off with tech , but policy might work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Figure out how to trace a significant percentage of those IPs to their IP blocks to their ISPs.
Notify the ISPs.
Start a coalition among them to shut off infected customers with a message explaining why and how to fix.
Start an advertising campaign to get public support for this and help pressure ISPs to join even though it is not in their short-term self-interest; sell it to them as good PR at this point.
Ask them to send a coupon to customers who disinfect, with prorated hours to reimburse the customer for time spent disconnected due to the infection; 90\% will never collect on it anyway.
Again, pitch this as good PR.
Ask them to do this again for the next major infection, again for good PR.
(As far as I'm concerned, big companies can crow to the rafters about all their good deeds, as long as they actually do them.
)It's pretty hard to kill this off with tech, but policy might work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931437</id>
	<title>Re:Cleaning job</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1256915700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm?<br>
&nbsp; Maybe they can inject instructions to the worm so it shutsdown but not before it spreads the "fix" to other computers? So along counting the number of PC's infected they also help in cleaning the worm. Impossible?</p></div><p>If you just sniff traffic, that doesn't mean you can inject instructions. And even if, how do you make sure *you* don't ruin the users computers? It is a ethical problem as soon as you mess with other peoples machines; These <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GdqoQJa6r4&amp;feature=youtube\_gdata" title="youtube.com">Botnet hijackers</a> [youtube.com] explain that too.<br>So, no, researchers are not going to do that. Also, too complex technically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm ?
  Maybe they can inject instructions to the worm so it shutsdown but not before it spreads the " fix " to other computers ?
So along counting the number of PC 's infected they also help in cleaning the worm .
Impossible ? If you just sniff traffic , that does n't mean you can inject instructions .
And even if , how do you make sure * you * do n't ruin the users computers ?
It is a ethical problem as soon as you mess with other peoples machines ; These Botnet hijackers [ youtube.com ] explain that too.So , no , researchers are not going to do that .
Also , too complex technically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm?
  Maybe they can inject instructions to the worm so it shutsdown but not before it spreads the "fix" to other computers?
So along counting the number of PC's infected they also help in cleaning the worm.
Impossible?If you just sniff traffic, that doesn't mean you can inject instructions.
And even if, how do you make sure *you* don't ruin the users computers?
It is a ethical problem as soon as you mess with other peoples machines; These Botnet hijackers [youtube.com] explain that too.So, no, researchers are not going to do that.
Also, too complex technically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931527</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256916660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The system protects users from installing software?</p></div><p>Linux does or at least makes it quite complicated to do so. Its one of the nice side-effects of having a package management system, that is incapable of handling non-root installations and doesn't have real support for third-party software, forcing the average user to pick all their software from the distributions repository instead of random webpages.</p><p>If a user manually adds new repositories or goes onto manually<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure &amp;&amp; make'ing things, than he is of course no better of then in Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The system protects users from installing software ? Linux does or at least makes it quite complicated to do so .
Its one of the nice side-effects of having a package management system , that is incapable of handling non-root installations and does n't have real support for third-party software , forcing the average user to pick all their software from the distributions repository instead of random webpages.If a user manually adds new repositories or goes onto manually ./configure &amp;&amp; make'ing things , than he is of course no better of then in Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system protects users from installing software?Linux does or at least makes it quite complicated to do so.
Its one of the nice side-effects of having a package management system, that is incapable of handling non-root installations and doesn't have real support for third-party software, forcing the average user to pick all their software from the distributions repository instead of random webpages.If a user manually adds new repositories or goes onto manually ./configure &amp;&amp; make'ing things, than he is of course no better of then in Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29933101</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1256985900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Win7 (and for that matter, Vista and even XP) <b>DO NOT</b> need anti-virus*. The ignorant monkeys who use them need anti-virus. Hell, the same is even true on OS X - it turns out there are people out there who are big enough Mac fanboys that they'll pirate iLife. Guess what - pirated versions of iLife have started coming with trojans in them, enough that a botnet composed exclusively of Macs running this malware now exists (small relative to Conficker, but nonetheless a serving to illustrate the point). Had those people been running anti-virus software, they *might* not have gotten themselves infected.</p><p>In case you missed the point, the source of much of today's malware is user-installed trojans, and the OS can't fix stupid users. Windows is by far the most targeted OS, so Microsoft has found it useful to inform users about antivirus (which provides at least some protection).</p><p>* In general, I'll only stand by this claim for users running as non-admin; zero-day exploits do happen. Fortunately, running as non0admin on Vista and Win7 is easy via UAC; on XP it's more difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Win7 ( and for that matter , Vista and even XP ) DO NOT need anti-virus * .
The ignorant monkeys who use them need anti-virus .
Hell , the same is even true on OS X - it turns out there are people out there who are big enough Mac fanboys that they 'll pirate iLife .
Guess what - pirated versions of iLife have started coming with trojans in them , enough that a botnet composed exclusively of Macs running this malware now exists ( small relative to Conficker , but nonetheless a serving to illustrate the point ) .
Had those people been running anti-virus software , they * might * not have gotten themselves infected.In case you missed the point , the source of much of today 's malware is user-installed trojans , and the OS ca n't fix stupid users .
Windows is by far the most targeted OS , so Microsoft has found it useful to inform users about antivirus ( which provides at least some protection ) .
* In general , I 'll only stand by this claim for users running as non-admin ; zero-day exploits do happen .
Fortunately , running as non0admin on Vista and Win7 is easy via UAC ; on XP it 's more difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Win7 (and for that matter, Vista and even XP) DO NOT need anti-virus*.
The ignorant monkeys who use them need anti-virus.
Hell, the same is even true on OS X - it turns out there are people out there who are big enough Mac fanboys that they'll pirate iLife.
Guess what - pirated versions of iLife have started coming with trojans in them, enough that a botnet composed exclusively of Macs running this malware now exists (small relative to Conficker, but nonetheless a serving to illustrate the point).
Had those people been running anti-virus software, they *might* not have gotten themselves infected.In case you missed the point, the source of much of today's malware is user-installed trojans, and the OS can't fix stupid users.
Windows is by far the most targeted OS, so Microsoft has found it useful to inform users about antivirus (which provides at least some protection).
* In general, I'll only stand by this claim for users running as non-admin; zero-day exploits do happen.
Fortunately, running as non0admin on Vista and Win7 is easy via UAC; on XP it's more difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930969</id>
	<title>I told him...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256910720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Al Gore should have listened to me and never invented the Internet.  The fool!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Gore should have listened to me and never invented the Internet .
The fool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Gore should have listened to me and never invented the Internet.
The fool!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621</id>
	<title>Cleaning job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256908080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm?<br> <br>

Maybe they can inject instructions to the worm so it shutsdown but not before it spreads the "fix" to other computers? So along counting the number of PC's infected they also help in cleaning the worm. Impossible?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm ?
Maybe they can inject instructions to the worm so it shutsdown but not before it spreads the " fix " to other computers ?
So along counting the number of PC 's infected they also help in cleaning the worm .
Impossible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm?
Maybe they can inject instructions to the worm so it shutsdown but not before it spreads the "fix" to other computers?
So along counting the number of PC's infected they also help in cleaning the worm.
Impossible?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932537</id>
	<title>It's a new trend, and I want one too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256930580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate my linux box for not letting me have this shiny thingy. It is a new trend - 7mil users and growing. I want one too!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate my linux box for not letting me have this shiny thingy .
It is a new trend - 7mil users and growing .
I want one too ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate my linux box for not letting me have this shiny thingy.
It is a new trend - 7mil users and growing.
I want one too!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930921</id>
	<title>Re:Cleaning job</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1256910360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm?<br>
&nbsp;</p> </div><p>Probably not.</p><p>But YOU CAN HELP:</p><p>Just Click the the CornFlicker Eye Chart to test your machine:</p><p><a href="http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/infection\_test/cfeyechart.html" title="confickerw...ggroup.org">http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/infection\_test/cfeyechart.html</a> [confickerw...ggroup.org]</p><p>You can read about it in the link posted in TFA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm ?
  Probably not.But YOU CAN HELP : Just Click the the CornFlicker Eye Chart to test your machine : http : //www.confickerworkinggroup.org/infection \ _test/cfeyechart.html [ confickerw...ggroup.org ] You can read about it in the link posted in TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm?
  Probably not.But YOU CAN HELP:Just Click the the CornFlicker Eye Chart to test your machine:http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/infection\_test/cfeyechart.html [confickerw...ggroup.org]You can read about it in the link posted in TFA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931109</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256911980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conficker broke 7 Million Infections...<br>Microsoft just released Windows 7...</p><p>Has anyone ever seen Conficker and Windows 7 in the same room together?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conficker broke 7 Million Infections...Microsoft just released Windows 7...Has anyone ever seen Conficker and Windows 7 in the same room together ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conficker broke 7 Million Infections...Microsoft just released Windows 7...Has anyone ever seen Conficker and Windows 7 in the same room together?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930779</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>therufus</author>
	<datestamp>1256909220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please somebody mod parent as funny. I don't want anyone reading it to think that that spyware is ACTUALLY a virus remover....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please somebody mod parent as funny .
I do n't want anyone reading it to think that that spyware is ACTUALLY a virus remover.... : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please somebody mod parent as funny.
I don't want anyone reading it to think that that spyware is ACTUALLY a virus remover.... :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932995</id>
	<title>more than 7 million surely?</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1256983800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they are basing 7 million PCs on 7 million unique ips, then surely there are likely many more than 7 million pcs infected, as each ip will represent one home router that is broadcasting to all the pcs in that home. And if one is infected, id say its fairly likely that all the rest are infected too, so id multiply that 7 million by the average number of pcs in a household.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are basing 7 million PCs on 7 million unique ips , then surely there are likely many more than 7 million pcs infected , as each ip will represent one home router that is broadcasting to all the pcs in that home .
And if one is infected , id say its fairly likely that all the rest are infected too , so id multiply that 7 million by the average number of pcs in a household .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are basing 7 million PCs on 7 million unique ips, then surely there are likely many more than 7 million pcs infected, as each ip will represent one home router that is broadcasting to all the pcs in that home.
And if one is infected, id say its fairly likely that all the rest are infected too, so id multiply that 7 million by the average number of pcs in a household.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932769</id>
	<title>So disappointing</title>
	<author>ndogg</author>
	<datestamp>1257021840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I'm a terrible person for thinking this, but I was really curious about the chaos that was to ensue once Conficker's creators brought the hammer down.</p><p>*sigh*</p><p>Alright, so hell is that way, right?  ---&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm a terrible person for thinking this , but I was really curious about the chaos that was to ensue once Conficker 's creators brought the hammer down .
* sigh * Alright , so hell is that way , right ?
--- &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm a terrible person for thinking this, but I was really curious about the chaos that was to ensue once Conficker's creators brought the hammer down.
*sigh*Alright, so hell is that way, right?
---&gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930609</id>
	<title>Ding!</title>
	<author>Mazda6s</author>
	<datestamp>1256908020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gratz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gratz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gratz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731</id>
	<title>I'm safe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256908920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've read that Antivirus 2009 removes conflicker, so I have installed it. Now I have to get rid of the other viruses I'm getting warnings about and for that I only need
<ul>
  <li>Cyber Security</li>
  <li>Alpha Antivirus</li>
  <li>Braviax</li>
  <li>Windows Police Pro</li>
  <li>Antivirus Pro 2010</li>
  <li>PC Antispyware 2010</li>
  <li>FraudTool.MalwareProtector.d</li>
  <li>Winshield2009.com</li>
  <li>Green AV</li>
  <li>Windows Protection Suite</li>
  <li>Total Security 2009</li>
  <li>Windows System Suite</li>
  <li>Antivirus BEST</li>
  <li>System Security</li>
  <li>Personal Antivirus</li>
  <li>System Security 2009</li>
  <li>Malware Doctor</li>
  <li>Antivirus System Pro</li>
  <li>WinPC Defender</li>
  <li>Anti-Virus-1</li>
  <li>Spyware Guard 2008</li>
  <li>System Guard 2009</li>
  <li>Antivirus 2010</li>
  <li>Antivirus Pro 2009</li>
  <li>Antivirus 360</li>
  <li>MS Antispyware 2009</li>
</ul><p>
<b>or</b>
</p><ul>
  <li>A Unix-based operating system (such as OS X or Ubuntu)</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read that Antivirus 2009 removes conflicker , so I have installed it .
Now I have to get rid of the other viruses I 'm getting warnings about and for that I only need Cyber Security Alpha Antivirus Braviax Windows Police Pro Antivirus Pro 2010 PC Antispyware 2010 FraudTool.MalwareProtector.d Winshield2009.com Green AV Windows Protection Suite Total Security 2009 Windows System Suite Antivirus BEST System Security Personal Antivirus System Security 2009 Malware Doctor Antivirus System Pro WinPC Defender Anti-Virus-1 Spyware Guard 2008 System Guard 2009 Antivirus 2010 Antivirus Pro 2009 Antivirus 360 MS Antispyware 2009 or A Unix-based operating system ( such as OS X or Ubuntu )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read that Antivirus 2009 removes conflicker, so I have installed it.
Now I have to get rid of the other viruses I'm getting warnings about and for that I only need

  Cyber Security
  Alpha Antivirus
  Braviax
  Windows Police Pro
  Antivirus Pro 2010
  PC Antispyware 2010
  FraudTool.MalwareProtector.d
  Winshield2009.com
  Green AV
  Windows Protection Suite
  Total Security 2009
  Windows System Suite
  Antivirus BEST
  System Security
  Personal Antivirus
  System Security 2009
  Malware Doctor
  Antivirus System Pro
  WinPC Defender
  Anti-Virus-1
  Spyware Guard 2008
  System Guard 2009
  Antivirus 2010
  Antivirus Pro 2009
  Antivirus 360
  MS Antispyware 2009

or

  A Unix-based operating system (such as OS X or Ubuntu)
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931051</id>
	<title>Lookup tool?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256911380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a lookup tool to see if your infected,<br>rather than boasting about how many IP's you've logged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a lookup tool to see if your infected,rather than boasting about how many IP 's you 've logged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a lookup tool to see if your infected,rather than boasting about how many IP's you've logged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930849</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1256909760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half the things you listed are malware themselves.</p><p>But your point is well taken regarding just about any flavor of Linux or OSX.</p><p>When Windows 7, fresh out of the box from Redmond nags you go get an antivirus that says something right there.</p><p>First it says Microsoft has no confidence in the ability of this version to stop any malware.</p><p>Second it transfers blame to a sketchy industry that had grown up based on a dodgy OS, and actually lobbied Microsoft not to lock them out, demanding the same holes in the OS that allow viruses in, in order to install their slow-ware.</p><p>If Windows 7 was half the Operating system Microsoft claims it is it wouldn't need an antivirus.  It would just delete your user account every time you switched to your guest account like OSX and be done with it.  (Hey, its a joke. No flames..).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half the things you listed are malware themselves.But your point is well taken regarding just about any flavor of Linux or OSX.When Windows 7 , fresh out of the box from Redmond nags you go get an antivirus that says something right there.First it says Microsoft has no confidence in the ability of this version to stop any malware.Second it transfers blame to a sketchy industry that had grown up based on a dodgy OS , and actually lobbied Microsoft not to lock them out , demanding the same holes in the OS that allow viruses in , in order to install their slow-ware.If Windows 7 was half the Operating system Microsoft claims it is it would n't need an antivirus .
It would just delete your user account every time you switched to your guest account like OSX and be done with it .
( Hey , its a joke .
No flames.. ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half the things you listed are malware themselves.But your point is well taken regarding just about any flavor of Linux or OSX.When Windows 7, fresh out of the box from Redmond nags you go get an antivirus that says something right there.First it says Microsoft has no confidence in the ability of this version to stop any malware.Second it transfers blame to a sketchy industry that had grown up based on a dodgy OS, and actually lobbied Microsoft not to lock them out, demanding the same holes in the OS that allow viruses in, in order to install their slow-ware.If Windows 7 was half the Operating system Microsoft claims it is it wouldn't need an antivirus.
It would just delete your user account every time you switched to your guest account like OSX and be done with it.
(Hey, its a joke.
No flames..).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29937403</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1256987340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not so much can't. It is naturally possible to purposefully infect your Unix machine, it's just that the system design doesn't set you up for failure.</p><p>The various UIs in Linux just don't make it easy to accidentally run a trojan, such as (for example) bodacious-tatas.jpg.exe. by treating users as if they might be too stupid to deal with seeing the entire actual filename. Then there's not being saddled with a legacy of expecting people to have administrative rights all the time.</p><p>Finally, there's no marketing department hell bent on convincing people they don't need to know ANYTHING AT ALL to use a computer and then blaming people using computers for not knowing how to not become an accomplice in the RBA's massive spam operation. Honestly, anyone using a computer SHOULD know at least that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much ca n't .
It is naturally possible to purposefully infect your Unix machine , it 's just that the system design does n't set you up for failure.The various UIs in Linux just do n't make it easy to accidentally run a trojan , such as ( for example ) bodacious-tatas.jpg.exe .
by treating users as if they might be too stupid to deal with seeing the entire actual filename .
Then there 's not being saddled with a legacy of expecting people to have administrative rights all the time.Finally , there 's no marketing department hell bent on convincing people they do n't need to know ANYTHING AT ALL to use a computer and then blaming people using computers for not knowing how to not become an accomplice in the RBA 's massive spam operation .
Honestly , anyone using a computer SHOULD know at least that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much can't.
It is naturally possible to purposefully infect your Unix machine, it's just that the system design doesn't set you up for failure.The various UIs in Linux just don't make it easy to accidentally run a trojan, such as (for example) bodacious-tatas.jpg.exe.
by treating users as if they might be too stupid to deal with seeing the entire actual filename.
Then there's not being saddled with a legacy of expecting people to have administrative rights all the time.Finally, there's no marketing department hell bent on convincing people they don't need to know ANYTHING AT ALL to use a computer and then blaming people using computers for not knowing how to not become an accomplice in the RBA's massive spam operation.
Honestly, anyone using a computer SHOULD know at least that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931223</id>
	<title>Re:I'm safe!</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1256913360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Half the things you listed are malware themselves.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Actually, every one is malware. He was trying to make a point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or a joke<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... Half the things you listed are malware themselves .
... " Actually , every one is malware .
He was trying to make a point ... or a joke ... or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... Half the things you listed are malware themselves.
..."Actually, every one is malware.
He was trying to make a point ... or a joke ... or both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930849</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29935421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29933101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29933723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29937403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29944372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_223238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29937403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29933101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29935421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29933723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29944372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29932995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29931335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_223238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_223238.29930753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
