<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_18_154236</id>
	<title>Firefox 3.6 Locks Out Rogue Add-ons</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1258557180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Mozilla will add a new <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141044/Firefox\_3.6\_locks\_out\_rogue\_add\_ons">lockdown feature to Firefox 3.6 that will prevent developers from sneaking add-ons</a> into the program, the company said. Dubbed 'component directory lockdown,' the feature will bar access to Firefox's 'components' directory, where most of the browser's own code is stored. Mozilla has billed the move as a way to boost the stability of its browser. 'We're doing this for stability and user control [reasons],' said Johnathan Nightingale, manager of the Firefox front-end development team. 'Dropping raw components in this way was never an officially supported way of doing things, which means it lacks things like a way to specify compatibility. When a new version of Firefox comes out that these components aren't compatible with, the result can be a real pain for our shared users ... Now that those components will be packaged like regular add-ons, they will specify the versions they are compatible with, and Firefox can disable any that it knows are likely to cause problems.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Mozilla will add a new lockdown feature to Firefox 3.6 that will prevent developers from sneaking add-ons into the program , the company said .
Dubbed 'component directory lockdown, ' the feature will bar access to Firefox 's 'components ' directory , where most of the browser 's own code is stored .
Mozilla has billed the move as a way to boost the stability of its browser .
'We 're doing this for stability and user control [ reasons ] , ' said Johnathan Nightingale , manager of the Firefox front-end development team .
'Dropping raw components in this way was never an officially supported way of doing things , which means it lacks things like a way to specify compatibility .
When a new version of Firefox comes out that these components are n't compatible with , the result can be a real pain for our shared users ... Now that those components will be packaged like regular add-ons , they will specify the versions they are compatible with , and Firefox can disable any that it knows are likely to cause problems .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Mozilla will add a new lockdown feature to Firefox 3.6 that will prevent developers from sneaking add-ons into the program, the company said.
Dubbed 'component directory lockdown,' the feature will bar access to Firefox's 'components' directory, where most of the browser's own code is stored.
Mozilla has billed the move as a way to boost the stability of its browser.
'We're doing this for stability and user control [reasons],' said Johnathan Nightingale, manager of the Firefox front-end development team.
'Dropping raw components in this way was never an officially supported way of doing things, which means it lacks things like a way to specify compatibility.
When a new version of Firefox comes out that these components aren't compatible with, the result can be a real pain for our shared users ... Now that those components will be packaged like regular add-ons, they will specify the versions they are compatible with, and Firefox can disable any that it knows are likely to cause problems.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144592</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-competitive?..</title>
	<author>solevita</author>
	<datestamp>1257094920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like Mozilla is securing Firefox; I imagine the average Slashdotter would approve of Microsoft doing to the same to IE. I don' t think this is related to anti-competitive behaviour, it's just ensuring that plugins act as plugins and don't overstep the boundary into application code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Mozilla is securing Firefox ; I imagine the average Slashdotter would approve of Microsoft doing to the same to IE .
I don ' t think this is related to anti-competitive behaviour , it 's just ensuring that plugins act as plugins and do n't overstep the boundary into application code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Mozilla is securing Firefox; I imagine the average Slashdotter would approve of Microsoft doing to the same to IE.
I don' t think this is related to anti-competitive behaviour, it's just ensuring that plugins act as plugins and don't overstep the boundary into application code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146266</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I love is how the benevolent firefox can now turn off or block any plugin they don't like not just the ones that cause problems. Just like apples iphone app kill switch. I disabled apple kill switch and will do the same to firefoxes kill switch the 1st opportunity</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I love is how the benevolent firefox can now turn off or block any plugin they do n't like not just the ones that cause problems .
Just like apples iphone app kill switch .
I disabled apple kill switch and will do the same to firefoxes kill switch the 1st opportunity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I love is how the benevolent firefox can now turn off or block any plugin they don't like not just the ones that cause problems.
Just like apples iphone app kill switch.
I disabled apple kill switch and will do the same to firefoxes kill switch the 1st opportunity</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152548</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257091920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?</i></p><p>It makes it easier to shove the change down the user's throat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no need for something like awesomebar to be core , is there ? It makes it easier to shove the change down the user 's throat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?It makes it easier to shove the change down the user's throat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144614</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>indi0144</author>
	<datestamp>1257094980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So my rant was useless?<br><br>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1407593&amp;cid=29776261<br><br>(no link because stupid slashcode eats my html tags)<br><br>I'd install a plugin that does just what I hinted in the end of the post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</htmltext>
<tokenext>So my rant was useless ? http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1407593&amp;cid = 29776261 ( no link because stupid slashcode eats my html tags ) I 'd install a plugin that does just what I hinted in the end of the post : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So my rant was useless?http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1407593&amp;cid=29776261(no link because stupid slashcode eats my html tags)I'd install a plugin that does just what I hinted in the end of the post :p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144290</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Trent Hawkins</author>
	<datestamp>1257093900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>wouldn't the mobile version of fire fox do that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>would n't the mobile version of fire fox do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wouldn't the mobile version of fire fox do that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144768</id>
	<title>Sounds like an improvement</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1257095700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems like this will improve firefox security. What firefox really needs however is a security zones feature that IE has had for over 10 years. You can create security zones, which contain lists of different sites and then place a site into that zone. The zone includes all settings for every possible feature a website uses, including flash and other plugins, java, javascript features, cookies, to name a few. This way you can use one database of sites for all settings rather than creating seperate lists of sites for each individual feature. This is one way that IE surpasses Firefox in security. Going to Firefox was in many ways a downgrade and has far more primitive security control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like this will improve firefox security .
What firefox really needs however is a security zones feature that IE has had for over 10 years .
You can create security zones , which contain lists of different sites and then place a site into that zone .
The zone includes all settings for every possible feature a website uses , including flash and other plugins , java , javascript features , cookies , to name a few .
This way you can use one database of sites for all settings rather than creating seperate lists of sites for each individual feature .
This is one way that IE surpasses Firefox in security .
Going to Firefox was in many ways a downgrade and has far more primitive security control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like this will improve firefox security.
What firefox really needs however is a security zones feature that IE has had for over 10 years.
You can create security zones, which contain lists of different sites and then place a site into that zone.
The zone includes all settings for every possible feature a website uses, including flash and other plugins, java, javascript features, cookies, to name a few.
This way you can use one database of sites for all settings rather than creating seperate lists of sites for each individual feature.
This is one way that IE surpasses Firefox in security.
Going to Firefox was in many ways a downgrade and has far more primitive security control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144034</id>
	<title>Re:Effects on Add-on Development</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1257092940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So what would be the effect on Add-on development? Would it make it more difficult to develop them? Would it constrain the Add-on developers?</i></p><p>Its the same reason why IE made it easier to develop web pages by tolerating broken HTML code.</p><p>People were using unintended features to make their work easier, but then when the unintended feature was removed then it breaks a lot of things.</p><p>In that respect, the developers should have wrote to spec in the first place rather than taking advantage of loopholes because it might get fixed one day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what would be the effect on Add-on development ?
Would it make it more difficult to develop them ?
Would it constrain the Add-on developers ? Its the same reason why IE made it easier to develop web pages by tolerating broken HTML code.People were using unintended features to make their work easier , but then when the unintended feature was removed then it breaks a lot of things.In that respect , the developers should have wrote to spec in the first place rather than taking advantage of loopholes because it might get fixed one day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what would be the effect on Add-on development?
Would it make it more difficult to develop them?
Would it constrain the Add-on developers?Its the same reason why IE made it easier to develop web pages by tolerating broken HTML code.People were using unintended features to make their work easier, but then when the unintended feature was removed then it breaks a lot of things.In that respect, the developers should have wrote to spec in the first place rather than taking advantage of loopholes because it might get fixed one day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144086</id>
	<title>Re:Effects on Add-on Development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't lock out any add-ons.  This locks out a "back door" way of slipping add-ons into Firefox without going through the proper add-on installation procedures (which, among other things, require metadata such as version compatibility information).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't lock out any add-ons .
This locks out a " back door " way of slipping add-ons into Firefox without going through the proper add-on installation procedures ( which , among other things , require metadata such as version compatibility information ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't lock out any add-ons.
This locks out a "back door" way of slipping add-ons into Firefox without going through the proper add-on installation procedures (which, among other things, require metadata such as version compatibility information).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882</id>
	<title>Effects on Add-on Development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what would be the effect on Add-on development? Would it make it more difficult to develop them? Would it constrain the Add-on developers?<br><br>Or is this just a method to lock out some Add-on with already known problems?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what would be the effect on Add-on development ?
Would it make it more difficult to develop them ?
Would it constrain the Add-on developers ? Or is this just a method to lock out some Add-on with already known problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what would be the effect on Add-on development?
Would it make it more difficult to develop them?
Would it constrain the Add-on developers?Or is this just a method to lock out some Add-on with already known problems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145276</id>
	<title>Will this keep out Adobe's crap?</title>
	<author>Choad Namath</author>
	<datestamp>1257097740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will this prevent Adobe from installing their mongoloidish "Download Manager" Add-on that's set up to start every time you open a new window instead of just running when you start your browser?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this prevent Adobe from installing their mongoloidish " Download Manager " Add-on that 's set up to start every time you open a new window instead of just running when you start your browser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this prevent Adobe from installing their mongoloidish "Download Manager" Add-on that's set up to start every time you open a new window instead of just running when you start your browser?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140</id>
	<title>Components specifying version compatibility ...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257093240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Works great, till you have someone like myself, who just specifies that my components are compatible with Firefox 2.* to 10.* so  I don't have to worry about a new version claiming my plugin isn't compatible even though it is, which has happened enough in the past that I just don't care anymore.</p><p>Am I wrong?  Yes.  Is Mozilla wrong? Yes, you never trust the external code to tell you the truth, basic programming 101.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Works great , till you have someone like myself , who just specifies that my components are compatible with Firefox 2 .
* to 10 .
* so I do n't have to worry about a new version claiming my plugin is n't compatible even though it is , which has happened enough in the past that I just do n't care anymore.Am I wrong ?
Yes. Is Mozilla wrong ?
Yes , you never trust the external code to tell you the truth , basic programming 101 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Works great, till you have someone like myself, who just specifies that my components are compatible with Firefox 2.
* to 10.
* so  I don't have to worry about a new version claiming my plugin isn't compatible even though it is, which has happened enough in the past that I just don't care anymore.Am I wrong?
Yes.  Is Mozilla wrong?
Yes, you never trust the external code to tell you the truth, basic programming 101.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143936</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>Errol backfiring</author>
	<datestamp>1257092580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me too. AND the fact that Microsoft thought that a browser was less stable because of the plugins. So they should actually be glad they cannot install unwanted crap anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too .
AND the fact that Microsoft thought that a browser was less stable because of the plugins .
So they should actually be glad they can not install unwanted crap anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too.
AND the fact that Microsoft thought that a browser was less stable because of the plugins.
So they should actually be glad they cannot install unwanted crap anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144554</id>
	<title>Open source</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1257094800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But doesn't this undermine the open source nature of this software?
<br> <br>Surely people should be able to install any plugins, dodgy or not, if they want to, on their own system?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But does n't this undermine the open source nature of this software ?
Surely people should be able to install any plugins , dodgy or not , if they want to , on their own system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But doesn't this undermine the open source nature of this software?
Surely people should be able to install any plugins, dodgy or not, if they want to, on their own system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145452</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't extend to all externally-installed add-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that does is add one more hoop for the bad guys to jump through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that does is add one more hoop for the bad guys to jump through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that does is add one more hoop for the bad guys to jump through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144818</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps this is what you want:<br>http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this is what you want : http : //kmeleon.sourceforge.net/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this is what you want:http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146628</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>R.Mo\_Robert</author>
	<datestamp>1257103320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?</p></div><p>Apparently, this is something the Mozilla folks thought people would like--and, indeed, many do. When used properly, the AwesomeBar nearly lets you forget about bookmarks and history. I really miss this feature in other browsers or in computer labs with older versions of Firefox.</p><p>If you don't like it (or if you're just too set in your ways), you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it. Also, there is the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6227" title="mozilla.org">oldbar extension</a> [mozilla.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no need for something like awesomebar to be core , is there ? Apparently , this is something the Mozilla folks thought people would like--and , indeed , many do .
When used properly , the AwesomeBar nearly lets you forget about bookmarks and history .
I really miss this feature in other browsers or in computer labs with older versions of Firefox.If you do n't like it ( or if you 're just too set in your ways ) , you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it .
Also , there is the oldbar extension [ mozilla.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?Apparently, this is something the Mozilla folks thought people would like--and, indeed, many do.
When used properly, the AwesomeBar nearly lets you forget about bookmarks and history.
I really miss this feature in other browsers or in computer labs with older versions of Firefox.If you don't like it (or if you're just too set in your ways), you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it.
Also, there is the oldbar extension [mozilla.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144006</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1257092820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they said they would have a solution, and this is a viable one.  That is exactly what I had in mind as well. Like they say, locks keep honest people honest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they said they would have a solution , and this is a viable one .
That is exactly what I had in mind as well .
Like they say , locks keep honest people honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they said they would have a solution, and this is a viable one.
That is exactly what I had in mind as well.
Like they say, locks keep honest people honest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144766</id>
	<title>Rogues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rogues does it from behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rogues does it from behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rogues does it from behind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148002</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Degro</author>
	<datestamp>1257066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I've been using chrome as my primary browser lately, no add-ons so far.  I switch my relatives and friends as well.  It's like the OS X of browsers.  Constantly disabling add-ons that other programs conveniently installed for them is really annoying.  It's like cleaning out the windows malware their PCs always manage to accumulate.

Just a few days ago I dealt with a PC that was running incredibly slow, a few seconds of lag for each letter typed.  A quick look at the process list and I see firefox is using 99\% cpu.  I take a look at the add-ons and disable an add-on winamp snuck in and problem solved.  Who knows what the winamp addon was doing, but it's really fucking annoying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I 've been using chrome as my primary browser lately , no add-ons so far .
I switch my relatives and friends as well .
It 's like the OS X of browsers .
Constantly disabling add-ons that other programs conveniently installed for them is really annoying .
It 's like cleaning out the windows malware their PCs always manage to accumulate .
Just a few days ago I dealt with a PC that was running incredibly slow , a few seconds of lag for each letter typed .
A quick look at the process list and I see firefox is using 99 \ % cpu .
I take a look at the add-ons and disable an add-on winamp snuck in and problem solved .
Who knows what the winamp addon was doing , but it 's really fucking annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I've been using chrome as my primary browser lately, no add-ons so far.
I switch my relatives and friends as well.
It's like the OS X of browsers.
Constantly disabling add-ons that other programs conveniently installed for them is really annoying.
It's like cleaning out the windows malware their PCs always manage to accumulate.
Just a few days ago I dealt with a PC that was running incredibly slow, a few seconds of lag for each letter typed.
A quick look at the process list and I see firefox is using 99\% cpu.
I take a look at the add-ons and disable an add-on winamp snuck in and problem solved.
Who knows what the winamp addon was doing, but it's really fucking annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30149734</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1257075060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  Firefox got popular because they didn't want the mozilla bloat  Now it seams like the bloat people from mozilla came over and took over the firefox port.</p><p>Having the awesome bar as a default plug-in sounds like a wonderful idea.  If I could code, I'd do it (as well as have default for downloads be to ask,kept the option to disable 3rd party javascripts w/o needing noscript, and infact a way to block various 3rd party objects(flash, pictures, javascript, etc). Maybe call it Phoenix again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Nothing like having newer versions getting smaller and faster again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Firefox got popular because they did n't want the mozilla bloat Now it seams like the bloat people from mozilla came over and took over the firefox port.Having the awesome bar as a default plug-in sounds like a wonderful idea .
If I could code , I 'd do it ( as well as have default for downloads be to ask,kept the option to disable 3rd party javascripts w/o needing noscript , and infact a way to block various 3rd party objects ( flash , pictures , javascript , etc ) .
Maybe call it Phoenix again ; ) Nothing like having newer versions getting smaller and faster again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Firefox got popular because they didn't want the mozilla bloat  Now it seams like the bloat people from mozilla came over and took over the firefox port.Having the awesome bar as a default plug-in sounds like a wonderful idea.
If I could code, I'd do it (as well as have default for downloads be to ask,kept the option to disable 3rd party javascripts w/o needing noscript, and infact a way to block various 3rd party objects(flash, pictures, javascript, etc).
Maybe call it Phoenix again ;)Nothing like having newer versions getting smaller and faster again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144382</id>
	<title>Doesn't extend to all externally-installed add-ons</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1257094200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I notice this doesn't extend to plug-ins and extensions found via the various plugins directories and registry keys. If it were me, I'd extend this feature to include saving a list in a locked-down location of all known extensions/add-ons found via the plugin directories and via registry keys. Every time the browser started, if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that wasn't on the list, it'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not. That way nothing can get added to the browser without the user knowing and approving of the change.</p><p>Down in the advanced options I'd add a setting to give expert users the additional option of removing the plugin by either removing it's files from the plugins directory it was found in or removing it's registry keys depending on how it was found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice this does n't extend to plug-ins and extensions found via the various plugins directories and registry keys .
If it were me , I 'd extend this feature to include saving a list in a locked-down location of all known extensions/add-ons found via the plugin directories and via registry keys .
Every time the browser started , if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that was n't on the list , it 'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not .
That way nothing can get added to the browser without the user knowing and approving of the change.Down in the advanced options I 'd add a setting to give expert users the additional option of removing the plugin by either removing it 's files from the plugins directory it was found in or removing it 's registry keys depending on how it was found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice this doesn't extend to plug-ins and extensions found via the various plugins directories and registry keys.
If it were me, I'd extend this feature to include saving a list in a locked-down location of all known extensions/add-ons found via the plugin directories and via registry keys.
Every time the browser started, if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that wasn't on the list, it'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not.
That way nothing can get added to the browser without the user knowing and approving of the change.Down in the advanced options I'd add a setting to give expert users the additional option of removing the plugin by either removing it's files from the plugins directory it was found in or removing it's registry keys depending on how it was found.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147700</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1257108420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can hide the awesomebar by tweaking settings and add-ons... first thing I do on any Firefox installation.  However, the code is still out there, taking up space, and I have a hunch it's still causing a performance hit.  My understanding is that it spawns a database query every keystroke in the address bar, sometimes multiple queries if there are lots of matches.  I sometimes get stalls when I type into the location bar, and I wonder if the cause is that it's still making the queries, just hiding the results.<br> <br>

The awesomebar should always have been an optional add-on.  That's how ALL the bloat-features should be handled.  I still prefer Firefox more than any other browser, but my amount of proselytizing has sure decreased.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can hide the awesomebar by tweaking settings and add-ons... first thing I do on any Firefox installation .
However , the code is still out there , taking up space , and I have a hunch it 's still causing a performance hit .
My understanding is that it spawns a database query every keystroke in the address bar , sometimes multiple queries if there are lots of matches .
I sometimes get stalls when I type into the location bar , and I wonder if the cause is that it 's still making the queries , just hiding the results .
The awesomebar should always have been an optional add-on .
That 's how ALL the bloat-features should be handled .
I still prefer Firefox more than any other browser , but my amount of proselytizing has sure decreased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can hide the awesomebar by tweaking settings and add-ons... first thing I do on any Firefox installation.
However, the code is still out there, taking up space, and I have a hunch it's still causing a performance hit.
My understanding is that it spawns a database query every keystroke in the address bar, sometimes multiple queries if there are lots of matches.
I sometimes get stalls when I type into the location bar, and I wonder if the cause is that it's still making the queries, just hiding the results.
The awesomebar should always have been an optional add-on.
That's how ALL the bloat-features should be handled.
I still prefer Firefox more than any other browser, but my amount of proselytizing has sure decreased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152574</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257092220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you don't like it (or if you're just too set in your ways), you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it. Also, there is the oldbar extension.</i></p><p>The oldbar extension plus hideunvisited, or just old location bar on its own only exist because you CAN'T just change some options and haven't been able to since the official non-beta release of Firefox 3.0. If you could there would be many less complaints but its disgusting that they instead tried to force user behaviour and it took extension developers to work around it. So please stop spreading untruthes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like it ( or if you 're just too set in your ways ) , you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it .
Also , there is the oldbar extension.The oldbar extension plus hideunvisited , or just old location bar on its own only exist because you CA N'T just change some options and have n't been able to since the official non-beta release of Firefox 3.0 .
If you could there would be many less complaints but its disgusting that they instead tried to force user behaviour and it took extension developers to work around it .
So please stop spreading untruthes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like it (or if you're just too set in your ways), you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it.
Also, there is the oldbar extension.The oldbar extension plus hideunvisited, or just old location bar on its own only exist because you CAN'T just change some options and haven't been able to since the official non-beta release of Firefox 3.0.
If you could there would be many less complaints but its disgusting that they instead tried to force user behaviour and it took extension developers to work around it.
So please stop spreading untruthes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146978</id>
	<title>Re:That was the idea behind Firefox/Firebird/Phoen</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1257104760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no no, I think he's right, images, toolbars, panes, tabs are necessary infrastructure, RSS is not, the awesome bar is not, bookmarks are not, the question is, does this look like an extension? then why not make it a *default* extension? That way disabling the "bloat" would be easy for those who care and invisible for those who don't.</p><p>Put differently, why don't firefox devs learn to write extensions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no no , I think he 's right , images , toolbars , panes , tabs are necessary infrastructure , RSS is not , the awesome bar is not , bookmarks are not , the question is , does this look like an extension ?
then why not make it a * default * extension ?
That way disabling the " bloat " would be easy for those who care and invisible for those who do n't.Put differently , why do n't firefox devs learn to write extensions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no no, I think he's right, images, toolbars, panes, tabs are necessary infrastructure, RSS is not, the awesome bar is not, bookmarks are not, the question is, does this look like an extension?
then why not make it a *default* extension?
That way disabling the "bloat" would be easy for those who care and invisible for those who don't.Put differently, why don't firefox devs learn to write extensions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147078</id>
	<title>Two things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two things that I think are drastically needed in Firefox, and they should be #1 priority.  First is the ability to disable the "aditional plugins are required to view all the content of this page" type messages.  I have all the plug-in installed that I want, and will not install anymore.  The second is an option to truly lock down Firefox so that NOTHING can be installed/added without the user seeing a window where they can either allow or reject ANYTHING that any outside agency wants to install.  This is the way it should have been from day one!  No web site, OS update, etc should have ever been able to install anything without the end user's knowledge and consent!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two things that I think are drastically needed in Firefox , and they should be # 1 priority .
First is the ability to disable the " aditional plugins are required to view all the content of this page " type messages .
I have all the plug-in installed that I want , and will not install anymore .
The second is an option to truly lock down Firefox so that NOTHING can be installed/added without the user seeing a window where they can either allow or reject ANYTHING that any outside agency wants to install .
This is the way it should have been from day one !
No web site , OS update , etc should have ever been able to install anything without the end user 's knowledge and consent !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two things that I think are drastically needed in Firefox, and they should be #1 priority.
First is the ability to disable the "aditional plugins are required to view all the content of this page" type messages.
I have all the plug-in installed that I want, and will not install anymore.
The second is an option to truly lock down Firefox so that NOTHING can be installed/added without the user seeing a window where they can either allow or reject ANYTHING that any outside agency wants to install.
This is the way it should have been from day one!
No web site, OS update, etc should have ever been able to install anything without the end user's knowledge and consent!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274</id>
	<title>Anti-competitive?..</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1257093780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>prevent developers from sneaking add-ons into the program</p></div></blockquote><p>Not that I disapprove of this particular decision, but imagining the Slashdot's reaction to Microsoft implementing a thus-describable feature makes my head spin...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>prevent developers from sneaking add-ons into the programNot that I disapprove of this particular decision , but imagining the Slashdot 's reaction to Microsoft implementing a thus-describable feature makes my head spin.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>prevent developers from sneaking add-ons into the programNot that I disapprove of this particular decision, but imagining the Slashdot's reaction to Microsoft implementing a thus-describable feature makes my head spin...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</id>
	<title>.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Last February, and again in May, Firefox users complained when they found that Microsoft had pushed the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net Framework Assistant add-on and the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) plug-in to their browsers as part of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 (SP1) update, which was delivered via Windows Update.</p></div><p>That's the first thing I thought of when I read the summary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last February , and again in May , Firefox users complained when they found that Microsoft had pushed the .Net Framework Assistant add-on and the Windows Presentation Foundation ( WPF ) plug-in to their browsers as part of the .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 ( SP1 ) update , which was delivered via Windows Update.That 's the first thing I thought of when I read the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last February, and again in May, Firefox users complained when they found that Microsoft had pushed the .Net Framework Assistant add-on and the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) plug-in to their browsers as part of the .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 (SP1) update, which was delivered via Windows Update.That's the first thing I thought of when I read the summary.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147518</id>
	<title>Are you familiar with italics tags?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Italics</i> are much better for emphasis than SHOUTING.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Italics are much better for emphasis than SHOUTING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Italics are much better for emphasis than SHOUTING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566</id>
	<title>The actual problem is...</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1257094860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The acutal problem is that firefox blindly loads whatever is in that directory.<br>Locking the directory is a hack of a solution that others, especially Microsoft will easily find a way around. The proper answer is that Firefox needs to compare components it finds by their signature (checksum and name combo or whatever) with a secure list of components it is authorised by the user to load, before it loads them.<br>The other fix firefox needs is to deny installed extensions the ability to prevent the user from uninstalling them (like Microsoft's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework firefox extension did).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The acutal problem is that firefox blindly loads whatever is in that directory.Locking the directory is a hack of a solution that others , especially Microsoft will easily find a way around .
The proper answer is that Firefox needs to compare components it finds by their signature ( checksum and name combo or whatever ) with a secure list of components it is authorised by the user to load , before it loads them.The other fix firefox needs is to deny installed extensions the ability to prevent the user from uninstalling them ( like Microsoft 's .NET framework firefox extension did ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The acutal problem is that firefox blindly loads whatever is in that directory.Locking the directory is a hack of a solution that others, especially Microsoft will easily find a way around.
The proper answer is that Firefox needs to compare components it finds by their signature (checksum and name combo or whatever) with a secure list of components it is authorised by the user to load, before it loads them.The other fix firefox needs is to deny installed extensions the ability to prevent the user from uninstalling them (like Microsoft's .NET framework firefox extension did).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152458</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1257090840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah.  Microsoft isn't the only culprit, though.  Symantec, for instance, does the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Microsoft is n't the only culprit , though .
Symantec , for instance , does the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Microsoft isn't the only culprit, though.
Symantec, for instance, does the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145908</id>
	<title>sounds like</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1257100320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good resson to stay with Firefox 3.5.x</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good resson to stay with Firefox 3.5.x</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good resson to stay with Firefox 3.5.x</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145954</id>
	<title>Re:Effects on Add-on Development</title>
	<author>Dudeman\_Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1257100440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure this is a response to that mega security flaw addon that Microsoft forced into Firefox a while back.  Current add-on devs probably won't be affected because they are almost always installed via firefox's own addon installation method. (Just rolls off the tongue, don't it?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure this is a response to that mega security flaw addon that Microsoft forced into Firefox a while back .
Current add-on devs probably wo n't be affected because they are almost always installed via firefox 's own addon installation method .
( Just rolls off the tongue , do n't it ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure this is a response to that mega security flaw addon that Microsoft forced into Firefox a while back.
Current add-on devs probably won't be affected because they are almost always installed via firefox's own addon installation method.
(Just rolls off the tongue, don't it?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30150920</id>
	<title>To Mozilla: THANK YOU!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Few things annoy me more than having a piece of software I install on my PC start fscking with other programs from other vendors. I found out some malicious program slipped a MS DRM plugin into my Firefox on my XP netbook (ALL DRM is malicious). I have to use Windows on the netbook for accessibility purposes because the magnifiers for Linux perform terribly on the thing. That doesn't give MS the right to infect my browser as part of their crusade to control the Internet.</p><p>So, in a world where we can't even trust the proprietary OS that we disabled folks are forced to run, thanks for taking steps to protect us from it, Mozilla.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Few things annoy me more than having a piece of software I install on my PC start fscking with other programs from other vendors .
I found out some malicious program slipped a MS DRM plugin into my Firefox on my XP netbook ( ALL DRM is malicious ) .
I have to use Windows on the netbook for accessibility purposes because the magnifiers for Linux perform terribly on the thing .
That does n't give MS the right to infect my browser as part of their crusade to control the Internet.So , in a world where we ca n't even trust the proprietary OS that we disabled folks are forced to run , thanks for taking steps to protect us from it , Mozilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few things annoy me more than having a piece of software I install on my PC start fscking with other programs from other vendors.
I found out some malicious program slipped a MS DRM plugin into my Firefox on my XP netbook (ALL DRM is malicious).
I have to use Windows on the netbook for accessibility purposes because the magnifiers for Linux perform terribly on the thing.
That doesn't give MS the right to infect my browser as part of their crusade to control the Internet.So, in a world where we can't even trust the proprietary OS that we disabled folks are forced to run, thanks for taking steps to protect us from it, Mozilla.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144004</id>
	<title>Re:Effects on Add-on Development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like the best way to deal with an open plugin structure is to require mozilla to approve an app for wide-scale access to the internals, and for everyone else, restricted access that's more idiot-proofed.  That way, <i>anyone</i> can write a plugin (unlike say, the apple store) albeit with limits, but at the same time the main app devs can allow power user plugins that are proven to be safe.</p><p>It's too bad Apple hasn't gone this route. (yet)  Right now the only reason they are claiming for the app approval process is to "protect the users".  While that certainly is one of their goals, eliminating competition with their own software, (the #1, #2, and #3 top reasons for app rejection at the store) doing what mozilla is doing would accomplish user protection without the lockdown/collateral damage of a must-be-signed-to-run system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like the best way to deal with an open plugin structure is to require mozilla to approve an app for wide-scale access to the internals , and for everyone else , restricted access that 's more idiot-proofed .
That way , anyone can write a plugin ( unlike say , the apple store ) albeit with limits , but at the same time the main app devs can allow power user plugins that are proven to be safe.It 's too bad Apple has n't gone this route .
( yet ) Right now the only reason they are claiming for the app approval process is to " protect the users " .
While that certainly is one of their goals , eliminating competition with their own software , ( the # 1 , # 2 , and # 3 top reasons for app rejection at the store ) doing what mozilla is doing would accomplish user protection without the lockdown/collateral damage of a must-be-signed-to-run system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like the best way to deal with an open plugin structure is to require mozilla to approve an app for wide-scale access to the internals, and for everyone else, restricted access that's more idiot-proofed.
That way, anyone can write a plugin (unlike say, the apple store) albeit with limits, but at the same time the main app devs can allow power user plugins that are proven to be safe.It's too bad Apple hasn't gone this route.
(yet)  Right now the only reason they are claiming for the app approval process is to "protect the users".
While that certainly is one of their goals, eliminating competition with their own software, (the #1, #2, and #3 top reasons for app rejection at the store) doing what mozilla is doing would accomplish user protection without the lockdown/collateral damage of a must-be-signed-to-run system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144546</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At my company I would like a stripped-down Firefox without features like awesome bar and other bloat.</p></div><p>What is the other bloat?  On the default install please list everything you'd like to have removed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At my company I would like a stripped-down Firefox without features like awesome bar and other bloat.What is the other bloat ?
On the default install please list everything you 'd like to have removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At my company I would like a stripped-down Firefox without features like awesome bar and other bloat.What is the other bloat?
On the default install please list everything you'd like to have removed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30149596</id>
	<title>Re:That was the idea behind Firefox/Firebird/Phoen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My understanding (and please tell me if I'm wrong) is the point of Firefox was to supply a WEB BROWSER. Back then when you downloaded it you also got an email program, news reader, wysiwyg website builder, etc.</p></div> </blockquote><p>This implies that at one point in time you did get all that with Firefox, when you're really talking about what is now SeaMonkey.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding ( and please tell me if I 'm wrong ) is the point of Firefox was to supply a WEB BROWSER .
Back then when you downloaded it you also got an email program , news reader , wysiwyg website builder , etc .
This implies that at one point in time you did get all that with Firefox , when you 're really talking about what is now SeaMonkey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding (and please tell me if I'm wrong) is the point of Firefox was to supply a WEB BROWSER.
Back then when you downloaded it you also got an email program, news reader, wysiwyg website builder, etc.
This implies that at one point in time you did get all that with Firefox, when you're really talking about what is now SeaMonkey.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1257096420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The awesome bar, and most of the other firefox bloat, should be plugins. Firefox had this great plugin architecture which everyone and their dog used- except the firefox devs.<br>Why doesn't firefox ship with an array of "default" plugins, all of which can be disabled? There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The awesome bar , and most of the other firefox bloat , should be plugins .
Firefox had this great plugin architecture which everyone and their dog used- except the firefox devs.Why does n't firefox ship with an array of " default " plugins , all of which can be disabled ?
There 's no need for something like awesomebar to be core , is there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The awesome bar, and most of the other firefox bloat, should be plugins.
Firefox had this great plugin architecture which everyone and their dog used- except the firefox devs.Why doesn't firefox ship with an array of "default" plugins, all of which can be disabled?
There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144830</id>
	<title>Re:Components specifying version compatibility ...</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1257095940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't upload such extensions to addons.mozilla.org, thus it isn't likely many people will use it.  Right now extensions can only specify up to 3.6.*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't upload such extensions to addons.mozilla.org , thus it is n't likely many people will use it .
Right now extensions can only specify up to 3.6 .
* .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't upload such extensions to addons.mozilla.org, thus it isn't likely many people will use it.
Right now extensions can only specify up to 3.6.
*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144148</id>
	<title>homDo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>had at lun3htime code.F' Don't</htmltext>
<tokenext>had at lun3htime code.F ' Do n't</tokentext>
<sentencetext>had at lun3htime code.F' Don't</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145360</id>
	<title>Re:Components specifying version compatibility ...</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1257098100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I wish Firefox gave you the user the option of "Yes, install this extension even though it's not marked as compatible, I ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY."  It's a pain opening the archives and updating the version compatibility values manually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I wish Firefox gave you the user the option of " Yes , install this extension even though it 's not marked as compatible , I ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY .
" It 's a pain opening the archives and updating the version compatibility values manually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I wish Firefox gave you the user the option of "Yes, install this extension even though it's not marked as compatible, I ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY.
"  It's a pain opening the archives and updating the version compatibility values manually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30168216</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1258653000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think a user should be allowed to block a global extension from loading, but not be able to uninstall it. I also think firefox should have a number of it's own internal features turned into extensions that are installed and enabled by default, but which a user can then go to the addons screen and disable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a user should be allowed to block a global extension from loading , but not be able to uninstall it .
I also think firefox should have a number of it 's own internal features turned into extensions that are installed and enabled by default , but which a user can then go to the addons screen and disable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a user should be allowed to block a global extension from loading, but not be able to uninstall it.
I also think firefox should have a number of it's own internal features turned into extensions that are installed and enabled by default, but which a user can then go to the addons screen and disable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148636</id>
	<title>Re:Will this keep out Adobe's crap?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1257069780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, what? That add-on ran, downloaded what it was supposed to download, and then I uninstalled the add-on (or maybe I didn't, since I read that it was supposed to remove itself automatically anyway &ndash; I don't remember). It didn't cause me any undue hardship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what ?
That add-on ran , downloaded what it was supposed to download , and then I uninstalled the add-on ( or maybe I did n't , since I read that it was supposed to remove itself automatically anyway    I do n't remember ) .
It did n't cause me any undue hardship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what?
That add-on ran, downloaded what it was supposed to download, and then I uninstalled the add-on (or maybe I didn't, since I read that it was supposed to remove itself automatically anyway – I don't remember).
It didn't cause me any undue hardship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144400</id>
	<title>That was the idea behind Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was supposed to be a stripped down browser, instead of the bloat of the full Mozilla.  And, when they started, they were close.  But now they seem to be heading back in the other direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was supposed to be a stripped down browser , instead of the bloat of the full Mozilla .
And , when they started , they were close .
But now they seem to be heading back in the other direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was supposed to be a stripped down browser, instead of the bloat of the full Mozilla.
And, when they started, they were close.
But now they seem to be heading back in the other direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145374</id>
	<title>IE and extension blocking</title>
	<author>Jim Efaw</author>
	<datestamp>1257098160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember that IE 8 does something like this when it's first installed, asking if you want any IE extensions enabled at all, and whether you want IE extensions blocked until you approve them, or something of that nature.  But suffice to say that I don't install IE often enough to remember for sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember that IE 8 does something like this when it 's first installed , asking if you want any IE extensions enabled at all , and whether you want IE extensions blocked until you approve them , or something of that nature .
But suffice to say that I do n't install IE often enough to remember for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember that IE 8 does something like this when it's first installed, asking if you want any IE extensions enabled at all, and whether you want IE extensions blocked until you approve them, or something of that nature.
But suffice to say that I don't install IE often enough to remember for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145544</id>
	<title>Simply not security minded.</title>
	<author>Lord Duran</author>
	<datestamp>1257098700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I honestly don't understand why a web browser, which today is a platform for doing almost anything, would let any foreign code run without an explicit user request/confirmation - in the form of a standard, Firefoxy window the user knows. It's simply not security minded. Don't trust other people's code!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly do n't understand why a web browser , which today is a platform for doing almost anything , would let any foreign code run without an explicit user request/confirmation - in the form of a standard , Firefoxy window the user knows .
It 's simply not security minded .
Do n't trust other people 's code !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly don't understand why a web browser, which today is a platform for doing almost anything, would let any foreign code run without an explicit user request/confirmation - in the form of a standard, Firefoxy window the user knows.
It's simply not security minded.
Don't trust other people's code!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146424</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>nabsltd</author>
	<datestamp>1257102360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?</p></div><p>Maybe the full set of functionality isn't required to be in the "core", but I think that you'd have to have <b>some</b> sort of location bar in the core.</p><p>Then, you end up with an add-on either extending or duplicating the existing functionality, either of which can become a problem.</p><p>I think it would be far easier to have the full "awesome bar" as part of the core, but have a <b>real</b> UI that allows users to enable/disable every feature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no need for something like awesomebar to be core , is there ? Maybe the full set of functionality is n't required to be in the " core " , but I think that you 'd have to have some sort of location bar in the core.Then , you end up with an add-on either extending or duplicating the existing functionality , either of which can become a problem.I think it would be far easier to have the full " awesome bar " as part of the core , but have a real UI that allows users to enable/disable every feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?Maybe the full set of functionality isn't required to be in the "core", but I think that you'd have to have some sort of location bar in the core.Then, you end up with an add-on either extending or duplicating the existing functionality, either of which can become a problem.I think it would be far easier to have the full "awesome bar" as part of the core, but have a real UI that allows users to enable/disable every feature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145286</id>
	<title>Re:The actual problem is...</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1257097800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd also be nice if verified plug-ins were signed by Mozilla, so the user knew they were safe.  Perhaps make use of some of that peer-review that all the OSS folks claim is constantly happening?  If it looks kosher, bless it with a digital signature like Microsoft does? Firefox has become a victim of lots of crappy add-ons.  Keeping a list of unsafe add-ons would also be helpful (again list MS does).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd also be nice if verified plug-ins were signed by Mozilla , so the user knew they were safe .
Perhaps make use of some of that peer-review that all the OSS folks claim is constantly happening ?
If it looks kosher , bless it with a digital signature like Microsoft does ?
Firefox has become a victim of lots of crappy add-ons .
Keeping a list of unsafe add-ons would also be helpful ( again list MS does ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd also be nice if verified plug-ins were signed by Mozilla, so the user knew they were safe.
Perhaps make use of some of that peer-review that all the OSS folks claim is constantly happening?
If it looks kosher, bless it with a digital signature like Microsoft does?
Firefox has become a victim of lots of crappy add-ons.
Keeping a list of unsafe add-ons would also be helpful (again list MS does).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144782</id>
	<title>nethack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it doesn't allow rogue add-ons, does it allow nethack ones?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it does n't allow rogue add-ons , does it allow nethack ones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it doesn't allow rogue add-ons, does it allow nethack ones?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147388</id>
	<title>Re:That was the idea behind Firefox/Firebird/Phoen</title>
	<author>Zixaphir</author>
	<datestamp>1257106800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you even actually compiled Firefox before?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you even actually compiled Firefox before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you even actually compiled Firefox before?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30151668</id>
	<title>Re:The actual problem is...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257084900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how well do you think this will go over with corporations which require specific extensions to be used by employees?</p><p>I know of several that have required extensions for Thunderbird, users aren't allowed to disable them.  The user is not always authorized to make changes like this to the system.</p><p>You have a very limited view of the computing world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how well do you think this will go over with corporations which require specific extensions to be used by employees ? I know of several that have required extensions for Thunderbird , users are n't allowed to disable them .
The user is not always authorized to make changes like this to the system.You have a very limited view of the computing world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how well do you think this will go over with corporations which require specific extensions to be used by employees?I know of several that have required extensions for Thunderbird, users aren't allowed to disable them.
The user is not always authorized to make changes like this to the system.You have a very limited view of the computing world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</id>
	<title>I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At my company I would like a stripped-down Firefox without features like awesome bar and other bloat. Is there a way to do this, easily?</p><p>Also I have the SmartQ 7 and SmartQ 5 MIDs which are basedon the ARM processor.  Thedefault browseris Midori... can I get a Firefox compiled for the ARM to run on that?</p><p>I hink  firefox shoudl focus on these and similar issues...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At my company I would like a stripped-down Firefox without features like awesome bar and other bloat .
Is there a way to do this , easily ? Also I have the SmartQ 7 and SmartQ 5 MIDs which are basedon the ARM processor .
Thedefault browseris Midori... can I get a Firefox compiled for the ARM to run on that ? I hink firefox shoudl focus on these and similar issues.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At my company I would like a stripped-down Firefox without features like awesome bar and other bloat.
Is there a way to do this, easily?Also I have the SmartQ 7 and SmartQ 5 MIDs which are basedon the ARM processor.
Thedefault browseris Midori... can I get a Firefox compiled for the ARM to run on that?I hink  firefox shoudl focus on these and similar issues...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144002</id>
	<title>Re:Effects on Add-on Development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully it's gonna lock out add-ons that weren't initiated from within the browser with explicit intention from the user.  The MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET stuff and the browser addons that get automatically (if you're not paying close attention, which my users never are) added from Adobe Reader, Java, CCleaner, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully it 's gon na lock out add-ons that were n't initiated from within the browser with explicit intention from the user .
The MS .NET stuff and the browser addons that get automatically ( if you 're not paying close attention , which my users never are ) added from Adobe Reader , Java , CCleaner , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully it's gonna lock out add-ons that weren't initiated from within the browser with explicit intention from the user.
The MS .NET stuff and the browser addons that get automatically (if you're not paying close attention, which my users never are) added from Adobe Reader, Java, CCleaner, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146354</id>
	<title>Sure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Is there a way to do this, easily?"

Go grab the source code and rip out "awesome bar" and recompile.

"Can I get a Firefox compiled for the ARM to run on that?"

Of course you can, that's the beauty of open source. If it hasn't been port, then port it yourself. If you can't port or compile yourself, hire somebody to do it for you.

If you mean "I want everything in a special version with features that only matter to me that I don't have to spend any time, money or effort on, because I'm entitled to it!" then I think you're fucked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is there a way to do this , easily ?
" Go grab the source code and rip out " awesome bar " and recompile .
" Can I get a Firefox compiled for the ARM to run on that ?
" Of course you can , that 's the beauty of open source .
If it has n't been port , then port it yourself .
If you ca n't port or compile yourself , hire somebody to do it for you .
If you mean " I want everything in a special version with features that only matter to me that I do n't have to spend any time , money or effort on , because I 'm entitled to it !
" then I think you 're fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is there a way to do this, easily?
"

Go grab the source code and rip out "awesome bar" and recompile.
"Can I get a Firefox compiled for the ARM to run on that?
"

Of course you can, that's the beauty of open source.
If it hasn't been port, then port it yourself.
If you can't port or compile yourself, hire somebody to do it for you.
If you mean "I want everything in a special version with features that only matter to me that I don't have to spend any time, money or effort on, because I'm entitled to it!
" then I think you're fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145928</id>
	<title>Um, what's this then?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1257100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>JavaScript C-Types</p><p>Some add-on authors create binary components not because they want to interact with Firefox at the C++ level, but strictly so that they can make use of third party DLLs. If this is the only reason you are using a binary component instead of JavaScript, take a look at the new JavaScript C-Types support introduced in Firefox 3.6. It allows JavaScript code to load functions from DLLs on windows, and should allow you to eliminate your dependence on binary components entirely. This leads to a better compatibility path as new versions of Firefox are released.</p></div></blockquote><p>They say this can only be used from Chrome, but... um... I'm still not happy about having this in the API at all.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>JavaScript C-TypesSome add-on authors create binary components not because they want to interact with Firefox at the C + + level , but strictly so that they can make use of third party DLLs .
If this is the only reason you are using a binary component instead of JavaScript , take a look at the new JavaScript C-Types support introduced in Firefox 3.6 .
It allows JavaScript code to load functions from DLLs on windows , and should allow you to eliminate your dependence on binary components entirely .
This leads to a better compatibility path as new versions of Firefox are released.They say this can only be used from Chrome , but... um... I 'm still not happy about having this in the API at all .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JavaScript C-TypesSome add-on authors create binary components not because they want to interact with Firefox at the C++ level, but strictly so that they can make use of third party DLLs.
If this is the only reason you are using a binary component instead of JavaScript, take a look at the new JavaScript C-Types support introduced in Firefox 3.6.
It allows JavaScript code to load functions from DLLs on windows, and should allow you to eliminate your dependence on binary components entirely.
This leads to a better compatibility path as new versions of Firefox are released.They say this can only be used from Chrome, but... um... I'm still not happy about having this in the API at all.
:(
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144544</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could try Midori.
<a href="http://www.twotoasts.de/index.php?/pages/midori\_summary.html" title="twotoasts.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.twotoasts.de/index.php?/pages/midori\_summary.html</a> [twotoasts.de]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could try Midori .
http : //www.twotoasts.de/index.php ? /pages/midori \ _summary.html [ twotoasts.de ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could try Midori.
http://www.twotoasts.de/index.php?/pages/midori\_summary.html [twotoasts.de]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146418</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-competitive?..</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1257102300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla isn't a monopoly, unlike Microsoft's operating system business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla is n't a monopoly , unlike Microsoft 's operating system business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla isn't a monopoly, unlike Microsoft's operating system business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30150778</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Zantetsuken</author>
	<datestamp>1257079740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/mobile/" title="mozilla.com">http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/mobile/</a> [mozilla.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.mozilla.com/en-US/mobile/ [ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/mobile/ [mozilla.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144222</id>
	<title>Evil!!!</title>
	<author>konohitowa</author>
	<datestamp>1257093600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>s/Firefox/iPhone/g</p><p>THEN you've got a story. One worthy of kdawson even...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>s/Firefox/iPhone/gTHEN you 've got a story .
One worthy of kdawson even.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>s/Firefox/iPhone/gTHEN you've got a story.
One worthy of kdawson even...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147922</id>
	<title>Give an inch, take a mile.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For free product with thousands of free accessories, Firefox sure does generate an awfully lot of complaints.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For free product with thousands of free accessories , Firefox sure does generate an awfully lot of complaints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For free product with thousands of free accessories, Firefox sure does generate an awfully lot of complaints.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147120</id>
	<title>Re:The actual problem is...</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1257105480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>with a secure list of components it is authorised by the user to load, before it loads them</p></div><p>Trying to secure what is on the users disk is hard, the best Mozilla can do is ask the OS to keep the disc in the same state (what they are doing)<br>Alternatively they could sign all the extensions but would make starting up slow. At the end of the day there is nothing they can do that MS can't work around, however with help from MS they can prevent anybody else doing the same.</p><p>IMO this is the sort of thing an improved apparmor should handle by only allowing firefox (and basic utilities) access to ~/.Mozilla (but there isn't much demand for securing the Linux desktop as people put all their faith in repos)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>with a secure list of components it is authorised by the user to load , before it loads themTrying to secure what is on the users disk is hard , the best Mozilla can do is ask the OS to keep the disc in the same state ( what they are doing ) Alternatively they could sign all the extensions but would make starting up slow .
At the end of the day there is nothing they can do that MS ca n't work around , however with help from MS they can prevent anybody else doing the same.IMO this is the sort of thing an improved apparmor should handle by only allowing firefox ( and basic utilities ) access to ~ /.Mozilla ( but there is n't much demand for securing the Linux desktop as people put all their faith in repos )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with a secure list of components it is authorised by the user to load, before it loads themTrying to secure what is on the users disk is hard, the best Mozilla can do is ask the OS to keep the disc in the same state (what they are doing)Alternatively they could sign all the extensions but would make starting up slow.
At the end of the day there is nothing they can do that MS can't work around, however with help from MS they can prevent anybody else doing the same.IMO this is the sort of thing an improved apparmor should handle by only allowing firefox (and basic utilities) access to ~/.Mozilla (but there isn't much demand for securing the Linux desktop as people put all their faith in repos)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146310</id>
	<title>Anti-competitive my ass</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1257101940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you mean, MS prevent programs from being installed or even piggybacking on other installs?</p><p>I don't know of anyone who'd be against that except the sales/marketing assholes of the world.</p><p>But that's ok.  You seem to have a straight head judging from your sig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you mean , MS prevent programs from being installed or even piggybacking on other installs ? I do n't know of anyone who 'd be against that except the sales/marketing assholes of the world.But that 's ok. You seem to have a straight head judging from your sig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you mean, MS prevent programs from being installed or even piggybacking on other installs?I don't know of anyone who'd be against that except the sales/marketing assholes of the world.But that's ok.  You seem to have a straight head judging from your sig.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144412</id>
	<title>Re:Components specifying version compatibility ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>how is firefox 10?  my alpha keeps crashing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how is firefox 10 ?
my alpha keeps crashing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is firefox 10?
my alpha keeps crashing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145116</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>LordSnooty</author>
	<datestamp>1257097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take source, rewrite source, build.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take source , rewrite source , build .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take source, rewrite source, build.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147282</id>
	<title>Re:That was the idea behind Firefox/Firebird/Phoen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RSS is bloat IMO and definitely shouldn't be in the core browser, I just use iGoogle to display my RSS feeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RSS is bloat IMO and definitely should n't be in the core browser , I just use iGoogle to display my RSS feeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RSS is bloat IMO and definitely shouldn't be in the core browser, I just use iGoogle to display my RSS feeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30168320</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258654500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. And The ability to show pictures, to have a menu, to render graphics, to show fonts, and to understand css should also be plugins.<br>Who needs all that <em>bloat</em>??</p><p>Also, mouse functionality and that newfangled HTML are rather pointless.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
And The ability to show pictures , to have a menu , to render graphics , to show fonts , and to understand css should also be plugins.Who needs all that bloat ?
? Also , mouse functionality and that newfangled HTML are rather pointless .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
And The ability to show pictures, to have a menu, to render graphics, to show fonts, and to understand css should also be plugins.Who needs all that bloat?
?Also, mouse functionality and that newfangled HTML are rather pointless.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146886</id>
	<title>Re:That was the idea behind Firefox/Firebird/Phoen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's bloat and what's not may not be black and white but some functionality, such as the 'awesome bar', which has nothing to do with browsing and is an actual impediment to many users, is obviously bloat.  Implementing functionality such as the awesome bar via  plug-in is a great idea but will never happen because firefox dev's like Edward Lee would rather tell users what's good for them than listen to feedback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's bloat and what 's not may not be black and white but some functionality , such as the 'awesome bar ' , which has nothing to do with browsing and is an actual impediment to many users , is obviously bloat .
Implementing functionality such as the awesome bar via plug-in is a great idea but will never happen because firefox dev 's like Edward Lee would rather tell users what 's good for them than listen to feedback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's bloat and what's not may not be black and white but some functionality, such as the 'awesome bar', which has nothing to do with browsing and is an actual impediment to many users, is obviously bloat.
Implementing functionality such as the awesome bar via  plug-in is a great idea but will never happen because firefox dev's like Edward Lee would rather tell users what's good for them than listen to feedback.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30156688</id>
	<title>Re:nethack</title>
	<author>thelenm</author>
	<datestamp>1258647480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, it's roguelike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it 's roguelike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it's roguelike.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144800</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1257095820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is different from that.  Those are actually packaged as add-ons so this change wouldn't affect them at all.</p><p>What Mozilla should do about those IMO is one of two things: 1) Enable the uninstall button for globally installed extensions (IE installed for all users) on Administrator accounts (in Windows; root on Linux... assuming Linux has global extensions) 2) Take steps to prevent or discourage apps from trying to plop extensions down and install them in Firefox without the user's consent.  The "official" way for installers to install extensions should be to invoke Firefox with the URL of the XPI.  Then the user would get the normal Firefox "Do you want to install this extension?" dialog and they can decide.  Of course it would be impossible to fully prevent extensions from being covertly installed, but I think it would be worth the effort to lay down a few roadblocks if only to indicate to extension devs "don't do it this way".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is different from that .
Those are actually packaged as add-ons so this change would n't affect them at all.What Mozilla should do about those IMO is one of two things : 1 ) Enable the uninstall button for globally installed extensions ( IE installed for all users ) on Administrator accounts ( in Windows ; root on Linux... assuming Linux has global extensions ) 2 ) Take steps to prevent or discourage apps from trying to plop extensions down and install them in Firefox without the user 's consent .
The " official " way for installers to install extensions should be to invoke Firefox with the URL of the XPI .
Then the user would get the normal Firefox " Do you want to install this extension ?
" dialog and they can decide .
Of course it would be impossible to fully prevent extensions from being covertly installed , but I think it would be worth the effort to lay down a few roadblocks if only to indicate to extension devs " do n't do it this way " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is different from that.
Those are actually packaged as add-ons so this change wouldn't affect them at all.What Mozilla should do about those IMO is one of two things: 1) Enable the uninstall button for globally installed extensions (IE installed for all users) on Administrator accounts (in Windows; root on Linux... assuming Linux has global extensions) 2) Take steps to prevent or discourage apps from trying to plop extensions down and install them in Firefox without the user's consent.
The "official" way for installers to install extensions should be to invoke Firefox with the URL of the XPI.
Then the user would get the normal Firefox "Do you want to install this extension?
" dialog and they can decide.
Of course it would be impossible to fully prevent extensions from being covertly installed, but I think it would be worth the effort to lay down a few roadblocks if only to indicate to extension devs "don't do it this way".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204</id>
	<title>Re:That was the idea behind Firefox/Firebird/Phoen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tired of reading these sorts of comments.  Sure there's some "bloat", but what that bloat is varies by opinion.  I've read where supporting CSS is "bloat".  Graphics are "bloat". tabs are "bloat".  RSS.  etc.</p><p>My understanding (and please tell me if I'm wrong) is the point of Firefox was to supply a WEB BROWSER.  Back then when you downloaded it you also got an email program, news reader, wysiwyg website builder, etc.  Firefox was JUST a browser.  Still is.</p><p>If you REALLY want where everything is an option go build it yourself.  Have something where you choose which renderer you want (Moz's, Webkit, etc), whether or not to have tabs, allow plugins, command line version, etc.  Hit next a few times and presto your very own browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tired of reading these sorts of comments .
Sure there 's some " bloat " , but what that bloat is varies by opinion .
I 've read where supporting CSS is " bloat " .
Graphics are " bloat " .
tabs are " bloat " .
RSS. etc.My understanding ( and please tell me if I 'm wrong ) is the point of Firefox was to supply a WEB BROWSER .
Back then when you downloaded it you also got an email program , news reader , wysiwyg website builder , etc .
Firefox was JUST a browser .
Still is.If you REALLY want where everything is an option go build it yourself .
Have something where you choose which renderer you want ( Moz 's , Webkit , etc ) , whether or not to have tabs , allow plugins , command line version , etc .
Hit next a few times and presto your very own browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tired of reading these sorts of comments.
Sure there's some "bloat", but what that bloat is varies by opinion.
I've read where supporting CSS is "bloat".
Graphics are "bloat".
tabs are "bloat".
RSS.  etc.My understanding (and please tell me if I'm wrong) is the point of Firefox was to supply a WEB BROWSER.
Back then when you downloaded it you also got an email program, news reader, wysiwyg website builder, etc.
Firefox was JUST a browser.
Still is.If you REALLY want where everything is an option go build it yourself.
Have something where you choose which renderer you want (Moz's, Webkit, etc), whether or not to have tabs, allow plugins, command line version, etc.
Hit next a few times and presto your very own browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144168</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1257093360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and I think that's pretty much what they're taking aim at. They already specifically blacklisted the add-on a while ago, causing huge cheer as well as huge backlash. It seems that with this approach they want a more flexible solution by making sure people can disable stuff they don't want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and I think that 's pretty much what they 're taking aim at .
They already specifically blacklisted the add-on a while ago , causing huge cheer as well as huge backlash .
It seems that with this approach they want a more flexible solution by making sure people can disable stuff they do n't want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and I think that's pretty much what they're taking aim at.
They already specifically blacklisted the add-on a while ago, causing huge cheer as well as huge backlash.
It seems that with this approach they want a more flexible solution by making sure people can disable stuff they don't want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148642</id>
	<title>Re:The actual problem is...</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1257069840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a problem, though, that there's no difference between a user interactively and his processes (well, Windows has an interesting hack for UAC).  Trying to prevent my programs from doing something ends up being inseparable from trying to prevent ME from doing something.  Any such method (signed whitelists) ends up being DRM, and that sounds just as bad when it's done for my protection, since you've done it without my permission.  And then if there were a way to let me turn it off, my processes could do that too.  You see the dilemma.
<br> <br>
Ultimately, you have to trust the OS permission model and give the user the power to fuck up everything he has rights to.  More ideally, we start using OSes with capability-based security systems and properly sandbox apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a problem , though , that there 's no difference between a user interactively and his processes ( well , Windows has an interesting hack for UAC ) .
Trying to prevent my programs from doing something ends up being inseparable from trying to prevent ME from doing something .
Any such method ( signed whitelists ) ends up being DRM , and that sounds just as bad when it 's done for my protection , since you 've done it without my permission .
And then if there were a way to let me turn it off , my processes could do that too .
You see the dilemma .
Ultimately , you have to trust the OS permission model and give the user the power to fuck up everything he has rights to .
More ideally , we start using OSes with capability-based security systems and properly sandbox apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a problem, though, that there's no difference between a user interactively and his processes (well, Windows has an interesting hack for UAC).
Trying to prevent my programs from doing something ends up being inseparable from trying to prevent ME from doing something.
Any such method (signed whitelists) ends up being DRM, and that sounds just as bad when it's done for my protection, since you've done it without my permission.
And then if there were a way to let me turn it off, my processes could do that too.
You see the dilemma.
Ultimately, you have to trust the OS permission model and give the user the power to fuck up everything he has rights to.
More ideally, we start using OSes with capability-based security systems and properly sandbox apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147678</id>
	<title>Give an inch, take a mile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's amazing the number of complaints people have for a free product with thousands of free accessories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing the number of complaints people have for a free product with thousands of free accessories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing the number of complaints people have for a free product with thousands of free accessories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146014</id>
	<title>Re:Components specifying version compatibility ...</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1257100680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you just have it assume that it's compatible in perpetuity? Even though it might not be? Surely you can see why Mozilla thinks that defeats the whole purpose of having add-ons declare compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you just have it assume that it 's compatible in perpetuity ?
Even though it might not be ?
Surely you can see why Mozilla thinks that defeats the whole purpose of having add-ons declare compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you just have it assume that it's compatible in perpetuity?
Even though it might not be?
Surely you can see why Mozilla thinks that defeats the whole purpose of having add-ons declare compatibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145292</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1257097800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, even if Firefox kept an encrypted store of what DLLs it had told the user about, there really isn't any way to prevent a malicious program from simply replicating the code used to create the store, so it would be pretty hard to always notify the user.</p><p>Google update is initiated here on my system (it looks like it is intended to facilitate installing updates to Google software while using Firefox, I would be surprised if it was doing anything nefarious):</p><p>HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MozillaPlugins</p><p>I guess the DRM plugins are loaded because Firefox treats the Windows Media Player directory as a plug-in directory, by default:</p><p><a href="http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plugin\_scanning" title="mozillazine.org" rel="nofollow">http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plugin\_scanning</a> [mozillazine.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , even if Firefox kept an encrypted store of what DLLs it had told the user about , there really is n't any way to prevent a malicious program from simply replicating the code used to create the store , so it would be pretty hard to always notify the user.Google update is initiated here on my system ( it looks like it is intended to facilitate installing updates to Google software while using Firefox , I would be surprised if it was doing anything nefarious ) : HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ MozillaPluginsI guess the DRM plugins are loaded because Firefox treats the Windows Media Player directory as a plug-in directory , by default : http : //kb.mozillazine.org/Plugin \ _scanning [ mozillazine.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, even if Firefox kept an encrypted store of what DLLs it had told the user about, there really isn't any way to prevent a malicious program from simply replicating the code used to create the store, so it would be pretty hard to always notify the user.Google update is initiated here on my system (it looks like it is intended to facilitate installing updates to Google software while using Firefox, I would be surprised if it was doing anything nefarious):HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MozillaPluginsI guess the DRM plugins are loaded because Firefox treats the Windows Media Player directory as a plug-in directory, by default:http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plugin\_scanning [mozillazine.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148832</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first thing I thought of was Bittorrent. (BtDNA?) It installs a firefox plugin with no notification whatsoever. That was the end of Bittorrent for me. Have they changed it since? I don't know, they will not get a second chance.</p><p>It is a real shame as the protocol was a great idea, and for years the official site warned of bogus distributions that exhibited exactly this kind of behaviour, then they proceed to do it themselves. I guess they figured if you can't beat 'em join 'em?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first thing I thought of was Bittorrent .
( BtDNA ? ) It installs a firefox plugin with no notification whatsoever .
That was the end of Bittorrent for me .
Have they changed it since ?
I do n't know , they will not get a second chance.It is a real shame as the protocol was a great idea , and for years the official site warned of bogus distributions that exhibited exactly this kind of behaviour , then they proceed to do it themselves .
I guess they figured if you ca n't beat 'em join 'em ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first thing I thought of was Bittorrent.
(BtDNA?) It installs a firefox plugin with no notification whatsoever.
That was the end of Bittorrent for me.
Have they changed it since?
I don't know, they will not get a second chance.It is a real shame as the protocol was a great idea, and for years the official site warned of bogus distributions that exhibited exactly this kind of behaviour, then they proceed to do it themselves.
I guess they figured if you can't beat 'em join 'em?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146208</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't extend to all externally-installed add-</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1257101580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Every time the browser started, if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that wasn't on the list, it'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not.</p></div><p>Don't ask me anything. Add-on's and extensions should only be included if you go to a Firefox UI and turn them on. There won't be any stealth additions, and if people really want some plug-in they'll figure it out, and the vendors will help by giving instructions.</p><p>Also, don't ask me about upgrades. Just upgrade the plug-in when starting (and restart if you must), and give me a way to lock an add-on at a particular version.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time the browser started , if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that was n't on the list , it 'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not.Do n't ask me anything .
Add-on 's and extensions should only be included if you go to a Firefox UI and turn them on .
There wo n't be any stealth additions , and if people really want some plug-in they 'll figure it out , and the vendors will help by giving instructions.Also , do n't ask me about upgrades .
Just upgrade the plug-in when starting ( and restart if you must ) , and give me a way to lock an add-on at a particular version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Every time the browser started, if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that wasn't on the list, it'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not.Don't ask me anything.
Add-on's and extensions should only be included if you go to a Firefox UI and turn them on.
There won't be any stealth additions, and if people really want some plug-in they'll figure it out, and the vendors will help by giving instructions.Also, don't ask me about upgrades.
Just upgrade the plug-in when starting (and restart if you must), and give me a way to lock an add-on at a particular version.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146832</id>
	<title>Re:Components specifying version compatibility ...</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1257104160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FF less than 3.6<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1.  Right-click -&gt; New -&gt; Boolean<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Name: extensions.checkCompatibility<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. Value: false</p><p>FF more than or equal to 3.6<br>extensions.checkcompatibility. is used instead (bug 521905). "" is the application version, including alpha and beta releases but excluding minor version updates. For example: Firefox 3.6b2 -&gt; extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6b Firefox 3.6 -&gt; extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6 and Firefox 3.6.1 -&gt; extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6.</p><p>it's all <a href="http://kb.mozillazine.org/Updating\_extensions" title="mozillazine.org">here</a> [mozillazine.org], did you even look before complaining?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FF less than 3.6       1 .
Right-click - &gt; New - &gt; Boolean       2 .
Name : extensions.checkCompatibility       3 .
Value : falseFF more than or equal to 3.6extensions.checkcompatibility .
is used instead ( bug 521905 ) .
" " is the application version , including alpha and beta releases but excluding minor version updates .
For example : Firefox 3.6b2 - &gt; extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6b Firefox 3.6 - &gt; extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6 and Firefox 3.6.1 - &gt; extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6.it 's all here [ mozillazine.org ] , did you even look before complaining ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FF less than 3.6
      1.
Right-click -&gt; New -&gt; Boolean
      2.
Name: extensions.checkCompatibility
      3.
Value: falseFF more than or equal to 3.6extensions.checkcompatibility.
is used instead (bug 521905).
"" is the application version, including alpha and beta releases but excluding minor version updates.
For example: Firefox 3.6b2 -&gt; extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6b Firefox 3.6 -&gt; extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6 and Firefox 3.6.1 -&gt; extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6.it's all here [mozillazine.org], did you even look before complaining?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152802</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>double07</author>
	<datestamp>1257094500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awesome bar is awesome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome bar is awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome bar is awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145236</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>anasciiman</author>
	<datestamp>1257097620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The code is available and forkable. Why not fix it to your liking and then submit patches?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The code is available and forkable .
Why not fix it to your liking and then submit patches ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The code is available and forkable.
Why not fix it to your liking and then submit patches?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144538</id>
	<title>Re:Effects on Add-on Development</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257094740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Net effect:  Slight increases in development effort.</p><p>As I understand it, you can install additional functionality into Firefox in one of two ways:</p><p>1.  Use the built-in installer.  This is the "countdown box" that confirms that you want to install what the software is asking to install.  It checks compatibility, and offers the capability of checking for updates and validating compatibility when a new version of Firefox gets installed (and disabling software that has NOT been tested with that specific flavor of Firefox).</p><p>2.  Throw a file into a plugins or addons directory and Firefox will look for it and load it unconditionally next time it starts.</p><p>Sounds to me like they are going to reduce or eliminate #2.</p><p>So, as a developer, you'll probably have to package your plugins into a Firefox install package rather than an old Netscape-style plugin.  You'll build that package specifying what versions of Firefox you have tested your plugin with, and the user will be informed that a new plugin wants to be installed.</p><p>Firefox could also fix this by scanning for all plugins and enumerating the ones that the user has identified as "safe", while prompting for any new ones that aren't in the database yet (or that have had their version numbers or file dates changed).</p><p>But that's more of a patch - the real solution is to protect the directory and only allow installs through the Firefox UI.  I would be very curious to find out how they intend to protect the directory, though maybe they are simply ignoring anything "unexpected" that happens to be sitting there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Net effect : Slight increases in development effort.As I understand it , you can install additional functionality into Firefox in one of two ways : 1 .
Use the built-in installer .
This is the " countdown box " that confirms that you want to install what the software is asking to install .
It checks compatibility , and offers the capability of checking for updates and validating compatibility when a new version of Firefox gets installed ( and disabling software that has NOT been tested with that specific flavor of Firefox ) .2 .
Throw a file into a plugins or addons directory and Firefox will look for it and load it unconditionally next time it starts.Sounds to me like they are going to reduce or eliminate # 2.So , as a developer , you 'll probably have to package your plugins into a Firefox install package rather than an old Netscape-style plugin .
You 'll build that package specifying what versions of Firefox you have tested your plugin with , and the user will be informed that a new plugin wants to be installed.Firefox could also fix this by scanning for all plugins and enumerating the ones that the user has identified as " safe " , while prompting for any new ones that are n't in the database yet ( or that have had their version numbers or file dates changed ) .But that 's more of a patch - the real solution is to protect the directory and only allow installs through the Firefox UI .
I would be very curious to find out how they intend to protect the directory , though maybe they are simply ignoring anything " unexpected " that happens to be sitting there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net effect:  Slight increases in development effort.As I understand it, you can install additional functionality into Firefox in one of two ways:1.
Use the built-in installer.
This is the "countdown box" that confirms that you want to install what the software is asking to install.
It checks compatibility, and offers the capability of checking for updates and validating compatibility when a new version of Firefox gets installed (and disabling software that has NOT been tested with that specific flavor of Firefox).2.
Throw a file into a plugins or addons directory and Firefox will look for it and load it unconditionally next time it starts.Sounds to me like they are going to reduce or eliminate #2.So, as a developer, you'll probably have to package your plugins into a Firefox install package rather than an old Netscape-style plugin.
You'll build that package specifying what versions of Firefox you have tested your plugin with, and the user will be informed that a new plugin wants to be installed.Firefox could also fix this by scanning for all plugins and enumerating the ones that the user has identified as "safe", while prompting for any new ones that aren't in the database yet (or that have had their version numbers or file dates changed).But that's more of a patch - the real solution is to protect the directory and only allow installs through the Firefox UI.
I would be very curious to find out how they intend to protect the directory, though maybe they are simply ignoring anything "unexpected" that happens to be sitting there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144954</id>
	<title>Re:Effects on Add-on Development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"which my users never are" - is weak - lock systems down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" which my users never are " - is weak - lock systems down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"which my users never are" - is weak - lock systems down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146938</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1257104580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Enable the uninstall button for globally installed extensions (IE installed for all users) on Administrator accounts</p></div><p>Wait... I thought they already did?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Enable the uninstall button for globally installed extensions ( IE installed for all users ) on Administrator accountsWait... I thought they already did ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Enable the uninstall button for globally installed extensions (IE installed for all users) on Administrator accountsWait... I thought they already did?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30150902</id>
	<title>Gorgor?</title>
	<author>rirugrat</author>
	<datestamp>1257080460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now how I am going to view Gorgor's links on FARK without Greasemonkey?  Wait, that might be a good thing...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now how I am going to view Gorgor 's links on FARK without Greasemonkey ?
Wait , that might be a good thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now how I am going to view Gorgor's links on FARK without Greasemonkey?
Wait, that might be a good thing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30149124</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>EkriirkE</author>
	<datestamp>1257072360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SeaMonkey</htmltext>
<tokenext>SeaMonkey</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SeaMonkey</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143968</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those components were installed by editing the Windows registry, not 'dropped in' as is discussed here (Firefox looks in various locations to find plug-ins and addons to load).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those components were installed by editing the Windows registry , not 'dropped in ' as is discussed here ( Firefox looks in various locations to find plug-ins and addons to load ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those components were installed by editing the Windows registry, not 'dropped in' as is discussed here (Firefox looks in various locations to find plug-ins and addons to load).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146584</id>
	<title>Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs...</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1257103140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the awsome bar is effectively free give firefox now uses sqlite to store bookmarks, as it can be disabled easily (or you can have an addin to re-theme it to the oldway, but getting rid of the "bloat" can be done with a gui setting)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the awsome bar is effectively free give firefox now uses sqlite to store bookmarks , as it can be disabled easily ( or you can have an addin to re-theme it to the oldway , but getting rid of the " bloat " can be done with a gui setting )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the awsome bar is effectively free give firefox now uses sqlite to store bookmarks, as it can be disabled easily (or you can have an addin to re-theme it to the oldway, but getting rid of the "bloat" can be done with a gui setting)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145084</id>
	<title>Re:.NET Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure that's the first thing everybody here thought of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that 's the first thing everybody here thought of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that's the first thing everybody here thought of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30151576</id>
	<title>I want to not install language packs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want a way to avoid installing (or at least enabling) the myriad of "language packs" that I'll never use, may introduce bugs in my browser or make it slower, and that make it difficult to see anything "new" that might've appeared there that I might need to see.</p><p>I really see no reason why ALL should be installed by default and enabled by default, when the GUI can tell quite clearly what language(s) I am using/preferring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want a way to avoid installing ( or at least enabling ) the myriad of " language packs " that I 'll never use , may introduce bugs in my browser or make it slower , and that make it difficult to see anything " new " that might 've appeared there that I might need to see.I really see no reason why ALL should be installed by default and enabled by default , when the GUI can tell quite clearly what language ( s ) I am using/preferring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want a way to avoid installing (or at least enabling) the myriad of "language packs" that I'll never use, may introduce bugs in my browser or make it slower, and that make it difficult to see anything "new" that might've appeared there that I might need to see.I really see no reason why ALL should be installed by default and enabled by default, when the GUI can tell quite clearly what language(s) I am using/preferring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143860</id>
	<title>User perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a user perspective, this sounds like a good move. Stability problems in Firefox always seems to stem from add-ons or extensions. Lock that crap down, and make the devs code the right way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a user perspective , this sounds like a good move .
Stability problems in Firefox always seems to stem from add-ons or extensions .
Lock that crap down , and make the devs code the right way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a user perspective, this sounds like a good move.
Stability problems in Firefox always seems to stem from add-ons or extensions.
Lock that crap down, and make the devs code the right way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145454</id>
	<title>Re:The actual problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that will work great.  Until they figure out how to add their components to the list, bypassing the user once again.  You are only adding another hoop for these people to jump through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that will work great .
Until they figure out how to add their components to the list , bypassing the user once again .
You are only adding another hoop for these people to jump through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that will work great.
Until they figure out how to add their components to the list, bypassing the user once again.
You are only adding another hoop for these people to jump through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30151668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30168216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30156688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30149734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30149596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30149124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30150778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_154236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145204
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146886
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30149596
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147518
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147282
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146978
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30149124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30150778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146628
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30149734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30168320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30151668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30147120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30148832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30168216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30152458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144614
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30143860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30146310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30144782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30156688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_154236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_154236.30145928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
