<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_20_0729246</id>
	<title>MS Finds Security Flaw In Google Chrome Frame</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258713600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://isc.sans.org/" rel="nofollow">Christmas Shopping</a> writes with this excerpt from Kaspersky Labs' threatpost: <i>"Back in September, when Google launched the Google Chome Frame plug-in for Internet Explorer users, Microsoft immediately warned that the move would increase the attack surface and make IE users less secure. Now comes word that a security researcher in the Microsoft Vulnerability Research (MSVR) <a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/microsoft-finds-security-flaw-google-chrome-frame-111909">has discovered a 'high risk' security vulnerability</a> that could allow an attacker to bypass cross-origin protections."</i>

"Google has hurried out a patch," he adds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Christmas Shopping writes with this excerpt from Kaspersky Labs ' threatpost : " Back in September , when Google launched the Google Chome Frame plug-in for Internet Explorer users , Microsoft immediately warned that the move would increase the attack surface and make IE users less secure .
Now comes word that a security researcher in the Microsoft Vulnerability Research ( MSVR ) has discovered a 'high risk ' security vulnerability that could allow an attacker to bypass cross-origin protections .
" " Google has hurried out a patch , " he adds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christmas Shopping writes with this excerpt from Kaspersky Labs' threatpost: "Back in September, when Google launched the Google Chome Frame plug-in for Internet Explorer users, Microsoft immediately warned that the move would increase the attack surface and make IE users less secure.
Now comes word that a security researcher in the Microsoft Vulnerability Research (MSVR) has discovered a 'high risk' security vulnerability that could allow an attacker to bypass cross-origin protections.
"

"Google has hurried out a patch," he adds.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170766</id>
	<title>This story should have been titled...</title>
	<author>Dammital</author>
	<datestamp>1258731000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... <i>Microsoft security researcher confirms advantages of open source transparency</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Microsoft security researcher confirms advantages of open source transparency</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Microsoft security researcher confirms advantages of open source transparency</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170900</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>celt63</author>
	<datestamp>1258731660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps MS should be more concerned about their own protocols.</p><p>"Most secure Os ever;<br>What ever your firewall is set to, you can get remotly smashed via IE or even via some broadcasting nbns tricks (no user interaction)<br>How funny."</p><p>http://g-laurent.blogspot.com/2009/11/windows-7-server-2008r2-remote-kernel.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps MS should be more concerned about their own protocols .
" Most secure Os ever ; What ever your firewall is set to , you can get remotly smashed via IE or even via some broadcasting nbns tricks ( no user interaction ) How funny .
" http : //g-laurent.blogspot.com/2009/11/windows-7-server-2008r2-remote-kernel.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps MS should be more concerned about their own protocols.
"Most secure Os ever;What ever your firewall is set to, you can get remotly smashed via IE or even via some broadcasting nbns tricks (no user interaction)How funny.
"http://g-laurent.blogspot.com/2009/11/windows-7-server-2008r2-remote-kernel.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171622</id>
	<title>tally 1000+ plus in windows/IE; 2 in Chrome?</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1258735080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure more in Chrome will appear in upcoming months.
But MS is hardly blameless in criticising another another company's security.
<br> <br>
In the long runt his constant bitching will make both products stronger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure more in Chrome will appear in upcoming months .
But MS is hardly blameless in criticising another another company 's security .
In the long runt his constant bitching will make both products stronger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure more in Chrome will appear in upcoming months.
But MS is hardly blameless in criticising another another company's security.
In the long runt his constant bitching will make both products stronger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30172120</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is all under the wild assumption that microsoft fixes their bugs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is all under the wild assumption that microsoft fixes their bugs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is all under the wild assumption that microsoft fixes their bugs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170348</id>
	<title>so what's "chome"?</title>
	<author>patsw</author>
	<datestamp>1258728480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's "chome"? "Back in September, when Google launched the Google Chome Frame plug-in for Internet Explorer users..."</p><p><a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/microsoft-finds-security-flaw-google-chrome-frame-111909" title="threatpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/microsoft-finds-security-flaw-google-chrome-frame-111909</a> [threatpost.com]<br>original post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's " chome " ?
" Back in September , when Google launched the Google Chome Frame plug-in for Internet Explorer users... " http : //threatpost.com/en \ _us/blogs/microsoft-finds-security-flaw-google-chrome-frame-111909 [ threatpost.com ] original post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's "chome"?
"Back in September, when Google launched the Google Chome Frame plug-in for Internet Explorer users..."http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/microsoft-finds-security-flaw-google-chrome-frame-111909 [threatpost.com]original post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171104</id>
	<title>What does this mean to us?</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1258732680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More likely, someone at a management meeting said "What does this mean to us?" and no one had an answer, so someone with that responsibility said "I'll form a team to go look at it."  He got together with his highly paid coworkers over a 3 hour power lunch with martinis and found someone who wouldn't blink during the "I don't have funding or responsibility in this area" game, and assigned the investigation to them.</p><p>This person asked his team to conduct a technical review of the implementation, and in the process the team found a potential security risk.</p><p>That sounds more like big business operation to me, from a fortune &lt;15 employee.  Microsoft was #44 in 2008, so probably operates like big business.</p><p>Less likely is "Let's spend money on highly paid technical folks looking for ways to make a headline people will forget in a week."  Possible, but less likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely , someone at a management meeting said " What does this mean to us ?
" and no one had an answer , so someone with that responsibility said " I 'll form a team to go look at it .
" He got together with his highly paid coworkers over a 3 hour power lunch with martinis and found someone who would n't blink during the " I do n't have funding or responsibility in this area " game , and assigned the investigation to them.This person asked his team to conduct a technical review of the implementation , and in the process the team found a potential security risk.That sounds more like big business operation to me , from a fortune Less likely is " Let 's spend money on highly paid technical folks looking for ways to make a headline people will forget in a week .
" Possible , but less likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely, someone at a management meeting said "What does this mean to us?
" and no one had an answer, so someone with that responsibility said "I'll form a team to go look at it.
"  He got together with his highly paid coworkers over a 3 hour power lunch with martinis and found someone who wouldn't blink during the "I don't have funding or responsibility in this area" game, and assigned the investigation to them.This person asked his team to conduct a technical review of the implementation, and in the process the team found a potential security risk.That sounds more like big business operation to me, from a fortune Less likely is "Let's spend money on highly paid technical folks looking for ways to make a headline people will forget in a week.
"  Possible, but less likely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173138</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258740720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.</p></div><p>You would lose your money. MSVR is looking at bunch of third-party programs and IE add-ons, but there's no team that targets specific companies.</p><p>Btw, are you by any chance payed by Google to spread FUD about Mictrosoft?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.You would lose your money .
MSVR is looking at bunch of third-party programs and IE add-ons , but there 's no team that targets specific companies.Btw , are you by any chance payed by Google to spread FUD about Mictrosoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.You would lose your money.
MSVR is looking at bunch of third-party programs and IE add-ons, but there's no team that targets specific companies.Btw, are you by any chance payed by Google to spread FUD about Mictrosoft?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170142</id>
	<title>No wonder</title>
	<author>Exitar</author>
	<datestamp>1258726740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that MS cannot find bugs in their products if they spend all the time looking for vulnerabilities in competitors products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that MS can not find bugs in their products if they spend all the time looking for vulnerabilities in competitors products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that MS cannot find bugs in their products if they spend all the time looking for vulnerabilities in competitors products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170698</id>
	<title>I wonder how much time &amp; money</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1258730640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how much time &amp; money they invested in finding a google bug than their own software?<br>My guess is more than the entire budget allowed for IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how much time &amp; money they invested in finding a google bug than their own software ? My guess is more than the entire budget allowed for IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how much time &amp; money they invested in finding a google bug than their own software?My guess is more than the entire budget allowed for IE6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169964</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1258724400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.</p></div><p>In that case, why didn't Microsoft loudly announce it to the world and shame Google?</p><p>Instead, they quietly reported it to Google so that they could fix the problem. Once the bug was fixed, Google acknowledged the security researcher who discovered the bug. This is exactly how the system is supposed to work so that everybody wins - we get safer software, Google doesn't have to "hurry out a patch" (without proper testing) and Microsoft gets the credit for the discovery. The bug gets fixed without tipping off the malware writers.</p><p>And why does everybody act so responsibly? Because next time it might be a Google employee that finds a bug in Microsoft's products. Microsoft would like to be afforded the same courtesy. Similarly, if Google didn't acknowledge Microsoft, then the next security researcher who finds a bug in Chrome may decide to get their credit by going public rather than following protocol. Remember that this public recognition is the same as an academic being published in a journal. It is how they build their reputation, and ultimately how they will get future employment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.In that case , why did n't Microsoft loudly announce it to the world and shame Google ? Instead , they quietly reported it to Google so that they could fix the problem .
Once the bug was fixed , Google acknowledged the security researcher who discovered the bug .
This is exactly how the system is supposed to work so that everybody wins - we get safer software , Google does n't have to " hurry out a patch " ( without proper testing ) and Microsoft gets the credit for the discovery .
The bug gets fixed without tipping off the malware writers.And why does everybody act so responsibly ?
Because next time it might be a Google employee that finds a bug in Microsoft 's products .
Microsoft would like to be afforded the same courtesy .
Similarly , if Google did n't acknowledge Microsoft , then the next security researcher who finds a bug in Chrome may decide to get their credit by going public rather than following protocol .
Remember that this public recognition is the same as an academic being published in a journal .
It is how they build their reputation , and ultimately how they will get future employment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.In that case, why didn't Microsoft loudly announce it to the world and shame Google?Instead, they quietly reported it to Google so that they could fix the problem.
Once the bug was fixed, Google acknowledged the security researcher who discovered the bug.
This is exactly how the system is supposed to work so that everybody wins - we get safer software, Google doesn't have to "hurry out a patch" (without proper testing) and Microsoft gets the credit for the discovery.
The bug gets fixed without tipping off the malware writers.And why does everybody act so responsibly?
Because next time it might be a Google employee that finds a bug in Microsoft's products.
Microsoft would like to be afforded the same courtesy.
Similarly, if Google didn't acknowledge Microsoft, then the next security researcher who finds a bug in Chrome may decide to get their credit by going public rather than following protocol.
Remember that this public recognition is the same as an academic being published in a journal.
It is how they build their reputation, and ultimately how they will get future employment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171266</id>
	<title>Re:At least they patched it</title>
	<author>j.sanchez1</author>
	<datestamp>1258733520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I imagine 90\% of your updates come from noscript. The author essentially just releases updates every few days just so that he can drive up views to his site and try to make money from it.<br>I guess that's his right, but it's annoying as hell and it's basically just made me stop updating noscript.</i>
<br> <br>
about:config, then search for "noscript.firstRunRedirection" and set it to false.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine 90 \ % of your updates come from noscript .
The author essentially just releases updates every few days just so that he can drive up views to his site and try to make money from it.I guess that 's his right , but it 's annoying as hell and it 's basically just made me stop updating noscript .
about : config , then search for " noscript.firstRunRedirection " and set it to false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine 90\% of your updates come from noscript.
The author essentially just releases updates every few days just so that he can drive up views to his site and try to make money from it.I guess that's his right, but it's annoying as hell and it's basically just made me stop updating noscript.
about:config, then search for "noscript.firstRunRedirection" and set it to false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173654</id>
	<title>Desktop = Corporate WarZone.</title>
	<author>miknix</author>
	<datestamp>1258742700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me that some computer desktops are starting to be a corporate warzone.</p><p>In other words: *All your desktop are belong to us*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that some computer desktops are starting to be a corporate warzone.In other words : * All your desktop are belong to us *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that some computer desktops are starting to be a corporate warzone.In other words: *All your desktop are belong to us*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169630</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1258718520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.</p></div></blockquote><p>Heh.  If so, it's a good reason to use Google Chrome Frame.  A program that has an active bug-finding team is more trustworthy than one where bugs and security holes are hushed up.</p><p>However, I don't think Microsoft would set out to help their competitor in this way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.Heh .
If so , it 's a good reason to use Google Chrome Frame .
A program that has an active bug-finding team is more trustworthy than one where bugs and security holes are hushed up.However , I do n't think Microsoft would set out to help their competitor in this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.Heh.
If so, it's a good reason to use Google Chrome Frame.
A program that has an active bug-finding team is more trustworthy than one where bugs and security holes are hushed up.However, I don't think Microsoft would set out to help their competitor in this way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171978</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>GigaHurtsMyRobot</author>
	<datestamp>1258736760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kind of like how the Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to fact check a book by Sarah Palin who holds no office (and found basically nothing false), but has never tried to fact check anything written by Obama.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of like how the Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to fact check a book by Sarah Palin who holds no office ( and found basically nothing false ) , but has never tried to fact check anything written by Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of like how the Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to fact check a book by Sarah Palin who holds no office (and found basically nothing false), but has never tried to fact check anything written by Obama.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30174228</id>
	<title>Re:At least they patched it</title>
	<author>LeotheQuick</author>
	<datestamp>1258744680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wtf, modded insightful?  I am the only one who recognized the sarcasm here!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wtf , modded insightful ?
I am the only one who recognized the sarcasm here !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wtf, modded insightful?
I am the only one who recognized the sarcasm here!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171536</id>
	<title>Re:theres a proverb</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1258734780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jesus FTW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus FTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus FTW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169698</id>
	<title>Re:At least they patched it</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1258719480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah it would be much better if the patches came out like they do for Firefox so that every other time you start Firefox you have to navigate an update dialog!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah it would be much better if the patches came out like they do for Firefox so that every other time you start Firefox you have to navigate an update dialog !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah it would be much better if the patches came out like they do for Firefox so that every other time you start Firefox you have to navigate an update dialog!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170062</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1258725660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>obviously google doesn't need to, they have morons like you doing it for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>obviously google does n't need to , they have morons like you doing it for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obviously google doesn't need to, they have morons like you doing it for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169678</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Ginger Unicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1258719180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>At first i thought the "google has hurried out a patch" in the summary was a quote from MS glibly dismissing the notion of fixing the problem in a timely manner, but looking through the article it seems this is a remark made by the submitter.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At first i thought the " google has hurried out a patch " in the summary was a quote from MS glibly dismissing the notion of fixing the problem in a timely manner , but looking through the article it seems this is a remark made by the submitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first i thought the "google has hurried out a patch" in the summary was a quote from MS glibly dismissing the notion of fixing the problem in a timely manner, but looking through the article it seems this is a remark made by the submitter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30175394</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258748400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You had me right up until "just to discredit them".</p><p>Microsoft clearly was concerned that Frame would add to the possible attack vectors into IE.  They've certainly said as much.  And that is a valid concern, frankly.  Due to that concern, they had their research team test for security vulnerabilities in Frame, obviously with particular focus on ones that could compromise a Windows system.</p><p>And, whaddya know, they found one.</p><p>Now, if they were trying to discredit Google, the first place they'd go is (MS)NBC and put out headlines "Google Chrome Frame Has a security breach!  Look at those losers!"</p><p>Instead, we see an announcement from Google that they have a patch for the defect, and acknowledging Microsoft as having found the bug and reported it to them.</p><p>Sounds to me like Microsoft was acting out of enlightened self-interest, and is demonstrating good team-playing skills by telling Google about it in enough detail for Google to come out with a fast fix.</p><p>Kudos to Microsoft for extending their security research beyond their own software and to external sources they might consider a threat.  Further kudos to Microsoft for reporting the issue to Google with enough detail to make a fix possible, without exposing it to the black hats so this never became a zero-day attack.</p><p>Kudos to Google for getting a fix out there quickly.  Further kudos to Google for having the respect to acknowledge Microsoft's contribution.</p><p>I'd say this is a perfect example of vendors being good players in the security arena, and respectful competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You had me right up until " just to discredit them " .Microsoft clearly was concerned that Frame would add to the possible attack vectors into IE .
They 've certainly said as much .
And that is a valid concern , frankly .
Due to that concern , they had their research team test for security vulnerabilities in Frame , obviously with particular focus on ones that could compromise a Windows system.And , whaddya know , they found one.Now , if they were trying to discredit Google , the first place they 'd go is ( MS ) NBC and put out headlines " Google Chrome Frame Has a security breach !
Look at those losers !
" Instead , we see an announcement from Google that they have a patch for the defect , and acknowledging Microsoft as having found the bug and reported it to them.Sounds to me like Microsoft was acting out of enlightened self-interest , and is demonstrating good team-playing skills by telling Google about it in enough detail for Google to come out with a fast fix.Kudos to Microsoft for extending their security research beyond their own software and to external sources they might consider a threat .
Further kudos to Microsoft for reporting the issue to Google with enough detail to make a fix possible , without exposing it to the black hats so this never became a zero-day attack.Kudos to Google for getting a fix out there quickly .
Further kudos to Google for having the respect to acknowledge Microsoft 's contribution.I 'd say this is a perfect example of vendors being good players in the security arena , and respectful competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had me right up until "just to discredit them".Microsoft clearly was concerned that Frame would add to the possible attack vectors into IE.
They've certainly said as much.
And that is a valid concern, frankly.
Due to that concern, they had their research team test for security vulnerabilities in Frame, obviously with particular focus on ones that could compromise a Windows system.And, whaddya know, they found one.Now, if they were trying to discredit Google, the first place they'd go is (MS)NBC and put out headlines "Google Chrome Frame Has a security breach!
Look at those losers!
"Instead, we see an announcement from Google that they have a patch for the defect, and acknowledging Microsoft as having found the bug and reported it to them.Sounds to me like Microsoft was acting out of enlightened self-interest, and is demonstrating good team-playing skills by telling Google about it in enough detail for Google to come out with a fast fix.Kudos to Microsoft for extending their security research beyond their own software and to external sources they might consider a threat.
Further kudos to Microsoft for reporting the issue to Google with enough detail to make a fix possible, without exposing it to the black hats so this never became a zero-day attack.Kudos to Google for getting a fix out there quickly.
Further kudos to Google for having the respect to acknowledge Microsoft's contribution.I'd say this is a perfect example of vendors being good players in the security arena, and respectful competitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30172050</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1258737060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because next time it might be a Google employee that finds a bug in Microsoft's products.</p></div><p>Which has happened already, look at the Acknowledgments section of say MS09-058.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because next time it might be a Google employee that finds a bug in Microsoft 's products.Which has happened already , look at the Acknowledgments section of say MS09-058 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because next time it might be a Google employee that finds a bug in Microsoft's products.Which has happened already, look at the Acknowledgments section of say MS09-058.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171876</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258736340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what does this have to do with GP's comment?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what does this have to do with GP 's comment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what does this have to do with GP's comment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169808</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1258721580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In an attempt at humour I will add that making "IE less secure" seems redundant. Much like this post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In an attempt at humour I will add that making " IE less secure " seems redundant .
Much like this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an attempt at humour I will add that making "IE less secure" seems redundant.
Much like this post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169844</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Starayo</author>
	<datestamp>1258722000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they should spend more time trying to find security flaws in their own products.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should spend more time trying to find security flaws in their own products .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should spend more time trying to find security flaws in their own products.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30172908</id>
	<title>Re:Dude</title>
	<author>Supergibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1258739880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on they did warn us when Google released it...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P

<a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-google-chrome-frame-makes-ie-less-secure.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-google-chrome-frame-makes-ie-less-secure.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on they did warn us when Google released it... : -P http : //arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-google-chrome-frame-makes-ie-less-secure.ars [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on they did warn us when Google released it... :-P

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-google-chrome-frame-makes-ie-less-secure.ars [arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169720</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>cl333r</author>
	<datestamp>1258719900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me too, one has to be very naive (if not completely stupid) to believe otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too , one has to be very naive ( if not completely stupid ) to believe otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too, one has to be very naive (if not completely stupid) to believe otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173616</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258742580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia, Microsoft finds your bugs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , Microsoft finds your bugs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, Microsoft finds your bugs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</id>
	<title>Expected</title>
	<author>Stratoukos</author>
	<datestamp>1258717440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169894</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1258723260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing too. If competitors spent more time actively looking for bugs in each others' software instead of paying their marketroids to spread FUD, everyone would be better off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing too .
If competitors spent more time actively looking for bugs in each others ' software instead of paying their marketroids to spread FUD , everyone would be better off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing too.
If competitors spent more time actively looking for bugs in each others' software instead of paying their marketroids to spread FUD, everyone would be better off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30180590</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>tigerhawkvok</author>
	<datestamp>1258726080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And ice can be a blistering 273 Kelvin!  Wow, that's a huge number!</p><p>The AP has ~4k fact checkers. So you're looking at about 0.25\% of the total AP fact-checking force to look at a new release political book.  Whadda ya know, context means something.</p><p>Also, various news programs and reports from members in the McCain campaign, including John McCain himself, has criticized the veracity of several comments in the book.  There are also email records directly at odds with her statements regarding the Tina Fey skits.</p><p>Finally, <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci\_13818747" title="mercurynews.com" rel="nofollow">here's an AP fact check from yesterday</a> [mercurynews.com], and <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/10/ap-fact-checks-obama-speech/" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">a direct check on a speech in September</a> [hotair.com].  Took me 15 seconds on Google to prove you wrong.  I somehow suspect you get all your news from Glenn Beck and O'Reilly.  It has that familiar evangelical pundit feel of "translate every criticism into an attack on Obama, warranted or not, because OMGZOBAMASSOCIALIST and eats Christian babies".</p><p>In other words, pwnd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And ice can be a blistering 273 Kelvin !
Wow , that 's a huge number ! The AP has ~ 4k fact checkers .
So you 're looking at about 0.25 \ % of the total AP fact-checking force to look at a new release political book .
Whadda ya know , context means something.Also , various news programs and reports from members in the McCain campaign , including John McCain himself , has criticized the veracity of several comments in the book .
There are also email records directly at odds with her statements regarding the Tina Fey skits.Finally , here 's an AP fact check from yesterday [ mercurynews.com ] , and a direct check on a speech in September [ hotair.com ] .
Took me 15 seconds on Google to prove you wrong .
I somehow suspect you get all your news from Glenn Beck and O'Reilly .
It has that familiar evangelical pundit feel of " translate every criticism into an attack on Obama , warranted or not , because OMGZOBAMASSOCIALIST and eats Christian babies " .In other words , pwnd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And ice can be a blistering 273 Kelvin!
Wow, that's a huge number!The AP has ~4k fact checkers.
So you're looking at about 0.25\% of the total AP fact-checking force to look at a new release political book.
Whadda ya know, context means something.Also, various news programs and reports from members in the McCain campaign, including John McCain himself, has criticized the veracity of several comments in the book.
There are also email records directly at odds with her statements regarding the Tina Fey skits.Finally, here's an AP fact check from yesterday [mercurynews.com], and a direct check on a speech in September [hotair.com].
Took me 15 seconds on Google to prove you wrong.
I somehow suspect you get all your news from Glenn Beck and O'Reilly.
It has that familiar evangelical pundit feel of "translate every criticism into an attack on Obama, warranted or not, because OMGZOBAMASSOCIALIST and eats Christian babies".In other words, pwnd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169996</id>
	<title>Re:At least they patched it</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1258724820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And not wait another week until it's patch-Tuesday.</p></div><p>How do you know exactly when the bug was first reported to Google? For all you know, they may have sat on the problem for a month.</p><p>It seems that they did batch the updates together, because this update to <a href="http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2009/11/google-chrome-frame-update-bug-fixes.html" title="blogspot.com">version 4.0.245.1</a> [blogspot.com] fixes 9 different issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And not wait another week until it 's patch-Tuesday.How do you know exactly when the bug was first reported to Google ?
For all you know , they may have sat on the problem for a month.It seems that they did batch the updates together , because this update to version 4.0.245.1 [ blogspot.com ] fixes 9 different issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not wait another week until it's patch-Tuesday.How do you know exactly when the bug was first reported to Google?
For all you know, they may have sat on the problem for a month.It seems that they did batch the updates together, because this update to version 4.0.245.1 [blogspot.com] fixes 9 different issues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171472</id>
	<title>Re:theres a proverb</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1258734480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure I've seen it phrased quite that way, but yes, there is.  And it is completely inapplicable to this situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure I 've seen it phrased quite that way , but yes , there is .
And it is completely inapplicable to this situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure I've seen it phrased quite that way, but yes, there is.
And it is completely inapplicable to this situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169532</id>
	<title>Dude</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258717380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>MS Finds Security Flaw</b> In Google Chrome Frame</p></div><p>Timothy, you owe me a new Transformers t-shirt. I just spat coffee all over myself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS Finds Security Flaw In Google Chrome FrameTimothy , you owe me a new Transformers t-shirt .
I just spat coffee all over myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> MS Finds Security Flaw In Google Chrome FrameTimothy, you owe me a new Transformers t-shirt.
I just spat coffee all over myself.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169540</id>
	<title>At least they patched it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258717500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And not wait another week until it's patch-Tuesday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And not wait another week until it 's patch-Tuesday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not wait another week until it's patch-Tuesday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170304</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>LordSnooty</author>
	<datestamp>1258728180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean they already went through Firefox's code and found nothing amiss?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean they already went through Firefox 's code and found nothing amiss ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean they already went through Firefox's code and found nothing amiss?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30244662</id>
	<title>Re:Dude</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259329140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Transformers t-shirt</p></div><p>Dude, you just officially lost your geek membership! Please hand the card it in. ^^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Transformers t-shirtDude , you just officially lost your geek membership !
Please hand the card it in .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transformers t-shirtDude, you just officially lost your geek membership!
Please hand the card it in.
^^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169920</id>
	<title>Re:At least they patched it</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1258723680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use noscript</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use noscript</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use noscript</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169782</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258721160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A security hole was found, and was patched. Who cares what Microsoft's motives were? This is competition, and it's working!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A security hole was found , and was patched .
Who cares what Microsoft 's motives were ?
This is competition , and it 's working !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A security hole was found, and was patched.
Who cares what Microsoft's motives were?
This is competition, and it's working!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170042</id>
	<title>theres a proverb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258725420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about removing the log from your own eye before removing the mote from your neighbours eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about removing the log from your own eye before removing the mote from your neighbours eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about removing the log from your own eye before removing the mote from your neighbours eye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169812</id>
	<title>Re:At least they patched it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258721640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I imagine 90\% of your updates come from noscript.  The author essentially just releases updates every few days just so that he can drive up views to his site and try to make money from it.</p><p>I guess that's his right, but it's annoying as hell and it's basically just made me stop updating noscript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine 90 \ % of your updates come from noscript .
The author essentially just releases updates every few days just so that he can drive up views to his site and try to make money from it.I guess that 's his right , but it 's annoying as hell and it 's basically just made me stop updating noscript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine 90\% of your updates come from noscript.
The author essentially just releases updates every few days just so that he can drive up views to his site and try to make money from it.I guess that's his right, but it's annoying as hell and it's basically just made me stop updating noscript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169612</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1258718340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Google doesn't have to pay them a cent.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Google does n't have to pay them a cent .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Google doesn't have to pay them a cent.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171060</id>
	<title>No surprise here, M$ always blames others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258732500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nothing new, M$ always blames others for their own crappy, insecure software. It is M$ that cals bugs "features" in M$ Windoze and all of M$'s software.  Then M$ places the blame the their own addicts for the short fallings of M$ software. Shit, M$ has even blamed distributers of non-free software as well as free software distributers for all problems in M$ Windoze.  So it should come as no surprise M$ is now blaming Google especially after $weatyB has threatened to fucking kill Google.</p><p>--<br>Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.<br>Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing new , M $ always blames others for their own crappy , insecure software .
It is M $ that cals bugs " features " in M $ Windoze and all of M $ 's software .
Then M $ places the blame the their own addicts for the short fallings of M $ software .
Shit , M $ has even blamed distributers of non-free software as well as free software distributers for all problems in M $ Windoze .
So it should come as no surprise M $ is now blaming Google especially after $ weatyB has threatened to fucking kill Google.--Friends do n't help friends install M $ junk.Friends do assist M $ addicted friends in committing suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing new, M$ always blames others for their own crappy, insecure software.
It is M$ that cals bugs "features" in M$ Windoze and all of M$'s software.
Then M$ places the blame the their own addicts for the short fallings of M$ software.
Shit, M$ has even blamed distributers of non-free software as well as free software distributers for all problems in M$ Windoze.
So it should come as no surprise M$ is now blaming Google especially after $weatyB has threatened to fucking kill Google.--Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169594</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>badran</author>
	<datestamp>1258717980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess google is happy that MS is doing some of the testing for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess google is happy that MS is doing some of the testing for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess google is happy that MS is doing some of the testing for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171432</id>
	<title>Re:Expected</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1258734300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They get one day a week to find bugs in Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They get one day a week to find bugs in Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They get one day a week to find bugs in Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173442</id>
	<title>Re:At least they patched it</title>
	<author>klui</author>
	<datestamp>1258741800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This means you need to run as administrator. My installs for my parents call for them being just Users and their installations don't get patched until I visit. Not an issue as I live relatively close by.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means you need to run as administrator .
My installs for my parents call for them being just Users and their installations do n't get patched until I visit .
Not an issue as I live relatively close by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means you need to run as administrator.
My installs for my parents call for them being just Users and their installations don't get patched until I visit.
Not an issue as I live relatively close by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30182412</id>
	<title>But how was it communicated to Google?</title>
	<author>niftymitch</author>
	<datestamp>1258745460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
How did MS communicate the bug to Google?
<br>
Were they polite and inform Google so that
the issue could be addressed in a timely update
or was it communicated in a public way enabling
hackers to race google in an exploit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.vs. patch
race.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did MS communicate the bug to Google ?
Were they polite and inform Google so that the issue could be addressed in a timely update or was it communicated in a public way enabling hackers to race google in an exploit .vs .
patch race .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
How did MS communicate the bug to Google?
Were they polite and inform Google so that
the issue could be addressed in a timely update
or was it communicated in a public way enabling
hackers to race google in an exploit .vs.
patch
race.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30244662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30175394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30180590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30172120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30174228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30172050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30172908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0729246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0729246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30172908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30244662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0729246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30180590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30175394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30172050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30172120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0729246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0729246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30174228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169812
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30169920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30173442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0729246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0729246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30170042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0729246.30171536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
