<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_20_1257232</id>
	<title>Zero-Day Vulnerabilities In Firefox Extensions</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258730040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Researchers have found <a href="http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=8527">several security holes in popular Firefox extensions</a> that have an estimated total of 30 million downloads from AMO (the Addons Mozilla community site). Three 0-days were also released. Mozilla doesn't have a security model for extensions and Firefox fully trusts the code of the extensions. There are no security boundaries between extensions and, to make things even worse, an extension can silently modify another extension."</i> The affected extensions are Sage version 1.4.3, InfoRSS 1.1.4.2, and Yoono 6.1.1 (and earlier versions). Clearly the problem is larger than just these three extensions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Researchers have found several security holes in popular Firefox extensions that have an estimated total of 30 million downloads from AMO ( the Addons Mozilla community site ) .
Three 0-days were also released .
Mozilla does n't have a security model for extensions and Firefox fully trusts the code of the extensions .
There are no security boundaries between extensions and , to make things even worse , an extension can silently modify another extension .
" The affected extensions are Sage version 1.4.3 , InfoRSS 1.1.4.2 , and Yoono 6.1.1 ( and earlier versions ) .
Clearly the problem is larger than just these three extensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Researchers have found several security holes in popular Firefox extensions that have an estimated total of 30 million downloads from AMO (the Addons Mozilla community site).
Three 0-days were also released.
Mozilla doesn't have a security model for extensions and Firefox fully trusts the code of the extensions.
There are no security boundaries between extensions and, to make things even worse, an extension can silently modify another extension.
" The affected extensions are Sage version 1.4.3, InfoRSS 1.1.4.2, and Yoono 6.1.1 (and earlier versions).
Clearly the problem is larger than just these three extensions.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172654</id>
	<title>Re:Zero Day</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258739100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we please stop raising the subject of "zero day" every time someone mentions it in a summary?  All that follows are countless* replies arguing the meaning of what "zero day" is.
<p>
<i> *hyperbole may have been applied here. </i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please stop raising the subject of " zero day " every time someone mentions it in a summary ?
All that follows are countless * replies arguing the meaning of what " zero day " is .
* hyperbole may have been applied here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please stop raising the subject of "zero day" every time someone mentions it in a summary?
All that follows are countless* replies arguing the meaning of what "zero day" is.
*hyperbole may have been applied here. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171336</id>
	<title>Browser vulnerabilities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258733820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, what Firefox lacks in quantity they make up for in quality. These are huge - what's more, it is nothing short of negligent for the Firefox dev team to have designed the security model this way.</p><p>I'll be switching my law firm back to IE and looking into a lawsuit against all FF contributors for their grossly negligent behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what Firefox lacks in quantity they make up for in quality .
These are huge - what 's more , it is nothing short of negligent for the Firefox dev team to have designed the security model this way.I 'll be switching my law firm back to IE and looking into a lawsuit against all FF contributors for their grossly negligent behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what Firefox lacks in quantity they make up for in quality.
These are huge - what's more, it is nothing short of negligent for the Firefox dev team to have designed the security model this way.I'll be switching my law firm back to IE and looking into a lawsuit against all FF contributors for their grossly negligent behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30173948</id>
	<title>New version</title>
	<author>dernotte</author>
	<datestamp>1258743720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi, I'm the author of infoRSS, and this version 1.1.4.x is an 1 year and 1/2 old version. Since then, the security layer has been well improved thanks to an assessment from an Australian security company. With the latest version (1.2.2) they were not able to find a security issue with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm the author of infoRSS , and this version 1.1.4.x is an 1 year and 1/2 old version .
Since then , the security layer has been well improved thanks to an assessment from an Australian security company .
With the latest version ( 1.2.2 ) they were not able to find a security issue with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I'm the author of infoRSS, and this version 1.1.4.x is an 1 year and 1/2 old version.
Since then, the security layer has been well improved thanks to an assessment from an Australian security company.
With the latest version (1.2.2) they were not able to find a security issue with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30182880</id>
	<title>Re:Lobo?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1258797480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what managed language has to do with this.  Firefox extensions are written in a managed language.  If your managed language code does something dumb (like taking a string from a web page and acting on it in some way that gives the web page the ability to place data of its choosing on your hard drive), you still lose security-wise...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what managed language has to do with this .
Firefox extensions are written in a managed language .
If your managed language code does something dumb ( like taking a string from a web page and acting on it in some way that gives the web page the ability to place data of its choosing on your hard drive ) , you still lose security-wise.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what managed language has to do with this.
Firefox extensions are written in a managed language.
If your managed language code does something dumb (like taking a string from a web page and acting on it in some way that gives the web page the ability to place data of its choosing on your hard drive), you still lose security-wise...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172400</id>
	<title>0-day?</title>
	<author>Tanaric</author>
	<datestamp>1258738260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the second story recently that tosses the term "0-day" around when "new" would suffice. Yes, 0-day sounds cool, and yes, it's a helpful description in, say, the warez scene (do we still call it that?), but in articles about bugs/exploits it just makes you sound stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the second story recently that tosses the term " 0-day " around when " new " would suffice .
Yes , 0-day sounds cool , and yes , it 's a helpful description in , say , the warez scene ( do we still call it that ?
) , but in articles about bugs/exploits it just makes you sound stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the second story recently that tosses the term "0-day" around when "new" would suffice.
Yes, 0-day sounds cool, and yes, it's a helpful description in, say, the warez scene (do we still call it that?
), but in articles about bugs/exploits it just makes you sound stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171828</id>
	<title>Re:I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1258735980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's really no excuse for Firefox to allow at least some of the more common security flaws - or at least allowing those flaws to cause problems.</p><p>First, sandboxing of extensions should limit what problems can be caused.</p><p>Second, a lot of errors are caused by the overflowing of buffers - a problem that could be limited by the use of stretchy buffers or bounds-checking malloc implementations. Or not allowing direct access to the heap.</p><p>Third, Firefox (and indeed all programs) should run on the principle of least privilege. Where some specific subset of program functionality requires significantly greater privilege than the rest, run the subset as a different thread or process at a different level of privilege. By extension (bad pun, I know), extensions could also be run as a different thread or process with even fewer rights. (OS' that don't allow programs to shed rights might be a problem, though.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's really no excuse for Firefox to allow at least some of the more common security flaws - or at least allowing those flaws to cause problems.First , sandboxing of extensions should limit what problems can be caused.Second , a lot of errors are caused by the overflowing of buffers - a problem that could be limited by the use of stretchy buffers or bounds-checking malloc implementations .
Or not allowing direct access to the heap.Third , Firefox ( and indeed all programs ) should run on the principle of least privilege .
Where some specific subset of program functionality requires significantly greater privilege than the rest , run the subset as a different thread or process at a different level of privilege .
By extension ( bad pun , I know ) , extensions could also be run as a different thread or process with even fewer rights .
( OS ' that do n't allow programs to shed rights might be a problem , though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's really no excuse for Firefox to allow at least some of the more common security flaws - or at least allowing those flaws to cause problems.First, sandboxing of extensions should limit what problems can be caused.Second, a lot of errors are caused by the overflowing of buffers - a problem that could be limited by the use of stretchy buffers or bounds-checking malloc implementations.
Or not allowing direct access to the heap.Third, Firefox (and indeed all programs) should run on the principle of least privilege.
Where some specific subset of program functionality requires significantly greater privilege than the rest, run the subset as a different thread or process at a different level of privilege.
By extension (bad pun, I know), extensions could also be run as a different thread or process with even fewer rights.
(OS' that don't allow programs to shed rights might be a problem, though.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172014</id>
	<title>Re:I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1258736880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better yet, create a special user or two, one for anonymous browsing and one for your security relevant tasks (banking etc). The first one should be automatically reset after use (I use an Ubuntu guest account for that), the other one should have an encrypted home folder. At least make sure your browser is up to date if you use farlukar's scheme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , create a special user or two , one for anonymous browsing and one for your security relevant tasks ( banking etc ) .
The first one should be automatically reset after use ( I use an Ubuntu guest account for that ) , the other one should have an encrypted home folder .
At least make sure your browser is up to date if you use farlukar 's scheme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, create a special user or two, one for anonymous browsing and one for your security relevant tasks (banking etc).
The first one should be automatically reset after use (I use an Ubuntu guest account for that), the other one should have an encrypted home folder.
At least make sure your browser is up to date if you use farlukar's scheme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346</id>
	<title>I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258733820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>: (<br>FF is my favorite web browser because they always made sure to be more secure then IE. I guess when it comes to add-ons and extensions, its always a crap shoot, but I always thought FF was better at handling security for extensions then IE, I guess<br>I will have to go back to using linx now because I trust nothing else...<br>Life will be boring</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: ( FF is my favorite web browser because they always made sure to be more secure then IE .
I guess when it comes to add-ons and extensions , its always a crap shoot , but I always thought FF was better at handling security for extensions then IE , I guessI will have to go back to using linx now because I trust nothing else...Life will be boring</tokentext>
<sentencetext>: (FF is my favorite web browser because they always made sure to be more secure then IE.
I guess when it comes to add-ons and extensions, its always a crap shoot, but I always thought FF was better at handling security for extensions then IE, I guessI will have to go back to using linx now because I trust nothing else...Life will be boring</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171916</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome time</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1258736520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, not even the license, really. Just use Chromium, if you care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , not even the license , really .
Just use Chromium , if you care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, not even the license, really.
Just use Chromium, if you care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171752</id>
	<title>Look to Android for the solution</title>
	<author>LS1 Brains</author>
	<datestamp>1258735740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unchecked, or merely poorly checked third party code has long been a tender Achilles heel for any system.  We beat down Windows 'round these parts with impunity, but often times the fault is with something outside of the code controlled by the Borg.  Firefox is not immune obviously, and there should be some system to help prevent "issues" when extensions and plugins are used.
<br> <br>
I wouldn't call it perfect, but Google's Android platform has a novel idea - your third party code must register for the privileges it requires to operate, and those privileges are then presented to the user for scrutiny in a very easy to understand manner.  Install an Android application, and you get to see what rights you grant that app before it launches the first time.  Hmmm, this game wants access to my contacts and the internet?  No thank you, lets just delete that before it shares my phone list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unchecked , or merely poorly checked third party code has long been a tender Achilles heel for any system .
We beat down Windows 'round these parts with impunity , but often times the fault is with something outside of the code controlled by the Borg .
Firefox is not immune obviously , and there should be some system to help prevent " issues " when extensions and plugins are used .
I would n't call it perfect , but Google 's Android platform has a novel idea - your third party code must register for the privileges it requires to operate , and those privileges are then presented to the user for scrutiny in a very easy to understand manner .
Install an Android application , and you get to see what rights you grant that app before it launches the first time .
Hmmm , this game wants access to my contacts and the internet ?
No thank you , lets just delete that before it shares my phone list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unchecked, or merely poorly checked third party code has long been a tender Achilles heel for any system.
We beat down Windows 'round these parts with impunity, but often times the fault is with something outside of the code controlled by the Borg.
Firefox is not immune obviously, and there should be some system to help prevent "issues" when extensions and plugins are used.
I wouldn't call it perfect, but Google's Android platform has a novel idea - your third party code must register for the privileges it requires to operate, and those privileges are then presented to the user for scrutiny in a very easy to understand manner.
Install an Android application, and you get to see what rights you grant that app before it launches the first time.
Hmmm, this game wants access to my contacts and the internet?
No thank you, lets just delete that before it shares my phone list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171358</id>
	<title>How did the "many eyes" miss this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258733880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where is your multi-eyed God now OSS fanboys? Hmmmm???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is your multi-eyed God now OSS fanboys ?
Hmmmm ? ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is your multi-eyed God now OSS fanboys?
Hmmmm???</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172652</id>
	<title>Use profiles</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1258739100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As web developer you use two profiles. One to launch FF with all these tool bars, but you dont surf the net in this instance. A separte default FF without all these extensions, just the basic NoScript alone will be used for surfing the net.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As web developer you use two profiles .
One to launch FF with all these tool bars , but you dont surf the net in this instance .
A separte default FF without all these extensions , just the basic NoScript alone will be used for surfing the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As web developer you use two profiles.
One to launch FF with all these tool bars, but you dont surf the net in this instance.
A separte default FF without all these extensions, just the basic NoScript alone will be used for surfing the net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171534</id>
	<title>Lobo?</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1258734780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There really needs to be Java (or other "managed" language based) based browser (like Lobo). Unfortunately Lobo is not (yet?) ready for prime time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There really needs to be Java ( or other " managed " language based ) based browser ( like Lobo ) .
Unfortunately Lobo is not ( yet ?
) ready for prime time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There really needs to be Java (or other "managed" language based) based browser (like Lobo).
Unfortunately Lobo is not (yet?
) ready for prime time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172356</id>
	<title>If Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft spent as much time on their own software, as they do trying to belittle others, then they might be able to fix some of the gaping holes in Windows. But, I guess it's better politics to throw mud, than to clean up your own messes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft spent as much time on their own software , as they do trying to belittle others , then they might be able to fix some of the gaping holes in Windows .
But , I guess it 's better politics to throw mud , than to clean up your own messes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft spent as much time on their own software, as they do trying to belittle others, then they might be able to fix some of the gaping holes in Windows.
But, I guess it's better politics to throw mud, than to clean up your own messes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30174322</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1258744920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't IE8 have all that built in now (F12 key)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't IE8 have all that built in now ( F12 key ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't IE8 have all that built in now (F12 key)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30176438</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258708860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That guy pulled that number out of his ass. Perhaps his computer has been compromised. I have about 10 tabs open including that link and FF is using 300 megs. Considering the amount of Javascript running on my pages, Flash content and all the other crap, I think it's doing quite well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That guy pulled that number out of his ass .
Perhaps his computer has been compromised .
I have about 10 tabs open including that link and FF is using 300 megs .
Considering the amount of Javascript running on my pages , Flash content and all the other crap , I think it 's doing quite well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That guy pulled that number out of his ass.
Perhaps his computer has been compromised.
I have about 10 tabs open including that link and FF is using 300 megs.
Considering the amount of Javascript running on my pages, Flash content and all the other crap, I think it's doing quite well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171768</id>
	<title>That actually makes sense.</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1258735800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFS:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla doesn't have a security model for extensions and Firefox fully trusts the code of the extensions. There are no security boundaries between extensions and, to make things even worse, an extension can silently modify another extension.</p></div><p>Not one of these is true of Chrome extensions -- or at least, it is possible to develop extensions which are not fully trusted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFS : Mozilla does n't have a security model for extensions and Firefox fully trusts the code of the extensions .
There are no security boundaries between extensions and , to make things even worse , an extension can silently modify another extension.Not one of these is true of Chrome extensions -- or at least , it is possible to develop extensions which are not fully trusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFS:Mozilla doesn't have a security model for extensions and Firefox fully trusts the code of the extensions.
There are no security boundaries between extensions and, to make things even worse, an extension can silently modify another extension.Not one of these is true of Chrome extensions -- or at least, it is possible to develop extensions which are not fully trusted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172796</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258739460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Memory waste? You mean like NoScript, which <em>out of principle</em> can&rsquo;t work?<br>(NoScript blocks JavaScript, except for those sites where you enabled it because you needed it. Which happen to be <em>exactly</em> the sites that XSS attackers target! And don&rsquo;t try to argue that you just don&rsquo;t go to those sites. Because following that logic, you would have to stop receiving any data packet from the net. Because someone could crack the TCP/IP stack, the HTTP module, the HTML and CSS parser, the image loader, etc, etc, etc.)</p><p>Or like having a graphical user interface running, when you could use plain text.</p><p>Face it: If it is worth it, it is worth it! If something is worth that few ms of wait and that some kB/MB or RAM, then it is worth it.<br>I have 45 extensions. About half of them are development extensions. And some 5 or so are disabled. But every single one is worth it!<br>You know how I know that? <em>Because I have them installed!</em> (I throw any file off my system that does not get used and is not in my archive.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Memory waste ?
You mean like NoScript , which out of principle can    t work ?
( NoScript blocks JavaScript , except for those sites where you enabled it because you needed it .
Which happen to be exactly the sites that XSS attackers target !
And don    t try to argue that you just don    t go to those sites .
Because following that logic , you would have to stop receiving any data packet from the net .
Because someone could crack the TCP/IP stack , the HTTP module , the HTML and CSS parser , the image loader , etc , etc , etc .
) Or like having a graphical user interface running , when you could use plain text.Face it : If it is worth it , it is worth it !
If something is worth that few ms of wait and that some kB/MB or RAM , then it is worth it.I have 45 extensions .
About half of them are development extensions .
And some 5 or so are disabled .
But every single one is worth it ! You know how I know that ?
Because I have them installed !
( I throw any file off my system that does not get used and is not in my archive .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Memory waste?
You mean like NoScript, which out of principle can’t work?
(NoScript blocks JavaScript, except for those sites where you enabled it because you needed it.
Which happen to be exactly the sites that XSS attackers target!
And don’t try to argue that you just don’t go to those sites.
Because following that logic, you would have to stop receiving any data packet from the net.
Because someone could crack the TCP/IP stack, the HTTP module, the HTML and CSS parser, the image loader, etc, etc, etc.
)Or like having a graphical user interface running, when you could use plain text.Face it: If it is worth it, it is worth it!
If something is worth that few ms of wait and that some kB/MB or RAM, then it is worth it.I have 45 extensions.
About half of them are development extensions.
And some 5 or so are disabled.
But every single one is worth it!You know how I know that?
Because I have them installed!
(I throw any file off my system that does not get used and is not in my archive.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171938</id>
	<title>DUHHHH......</title>
	<author>AssTard</author>
	<datestamp>1258736640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why was this not quite obvious to anyone else from the beginning of Firefox mania?
Seriously, this is the main reason I haven't jumped on the Firefox Fanboi bandwagon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why was this not quite obvious to anyone else from the beginning of Firefox mania ?
Seriously , this is the main reason I have n't jumped on the Firefox Fanboi bandwagon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why was this not quite obvious to anyone else from the beginning of Firefox mania?
Seriously, this is the main reason I haven't jumped on the Firefox Fanboi bandwagon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30177382</id>
	<title>Zero-day exploit you mean?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1258712040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can understand a zero-day exploit: one written within a day of a vulnerability being discovered. But what's a zero-day vulnerability? Presumably the vulnerability existed for days or months already. I'd think the zero-day would denote some duration between two events, like discovery and exploitation, as above.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand a zero-day exploit : one written within a day of a vulnerability being discovered .
But what 's a zero-day vulnerability ?
Presumably the vulnerability existed for days or months already .
I 'd think the zero-day would denote some duration between two events , like discovery and exploitation , as above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand a zero-day exploit: one written within a day of a vulnerability being discovered.
But what's a zero-day vulnerability?
Presumably the vulnerability existed for days or months already.
I'd think the zero-day would denote some duration between two events, like discovery and exploitation, as above.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172606</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome time</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258738920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's also the fact that FireFox doesn't force you to install an always-running background service whose sole purpose is to wake up periodically and check for updates (I think it is, anyway).  You'd think these folks had never heard of "cron" or "task scheduler".</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also the fact that FireFox does n't force you to install an always-running background service whose sole purpose is to wake up periodically and check for updates ( I think it is , anyway ) .
You 'd think these folks had never heard of " cron " or " task scheduler " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also the fact that FireFox doesn't force you to install an always-running background service whose sole purpose is to wake up periodically and check for updates (I think it is, anyway).
You'd think these folks had never heard of "cron" or "task scheduler".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171592</id>
	<title>Re:Lobo?</title>
	<author>Meneth</author>
	<datestamp>1258735020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Garbage collection does not protect against most security breaches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Garbage collection does not protect against most security breaches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Garbage collection does not protect against most security breaches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171750</id>
	<title>Adblock will save you memory</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1258735740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will also protect you overall, considering the amount of crap you find in web ads, even on supposedly reputable networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will also protect you overall , considering the amount of crap you find in web ads , even on supposedly reputable networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will also protect you overall, considering the amount of crap you find in web ads, even on supposedly reputable networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172000</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258736880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only half a gigabyte? Here's a quarter, kid. Buy yourself some more memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only half a gigabyte ?
Here 's a quarter , kid .
Buy yourself some more memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only half a gigabyte?
Here's a quarter, kid.
Buy yourself some more memory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30182926</id>
	<title>Re:It's about trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258798560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Users need to be aware that installing a plugin is tantamount to installing an application.</p></div><p>The browser <em>does</em> tell people this, and even forces them to look at the notice for a minimum of 5 seconds or so.  Extensions are also rated on Mozilla's site, so people have a basic idea of what kind of issues the extension might have and whether it's even useful or not.</p><p>What difference does this make to the casual user?  People don't read notices, and will install anything.</p><p>Extensions should be required to list the resources they use.  A mass downloader, URL re-writer, or color picking tool obviously doesn't need the same level of control as a tool for hacking HTTP headers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Users need to be aware that installing a plugin is tantamount to installing an application.The browser does tell people this , and even forces them to look at the notice for a minimum of 5 seconds or so .
Extensions are also rated on Mozilla 's site , so people have a basic idea of what kind of issues the extension might have and whether it 's even useful or not.What difference does this make to the casual user ?
People do n't read notices , and will install anything.Extensions should be required to list the resources they use .
A mass downloader , URL re-writer , or color picking tool obviously does n't need the same level of control as a tool for hacking HTTP headers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users need to be aware that installing a plugin is tantamount to installing an application.The browser does tell people this, and even forces them to look at the notice for a minimum of 5 seconds or so.
Extensions are also rated on Mozilla's site, so people have a basic idea of what kind of issues the extension might have and whether it's even useful or not.What difference does this make to the casual user?
People don't read notices, and will install anything.Extensions should be required to list the resources they use.
A mass downloader, URL re-writer, or color picking tool obviously doesn't need the same level of control as a tool for hacking HTTP headers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171708</id>
	<title>Privilege separation</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1258735500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's lovely and fussy and all things nice. A world facing app like a web-browser should make use of it.</p><p>Really with the performance of current desktop computers and even netbooks there's no good reason not to stick<br>potentially vulnerable parts of your browser in a separate process and block it from accessing anything it does not<br>absolutely need to deal with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's lovely and fussy and all things nice .
A world facing app like a web-browser should make use of it.Really with the performance of current desktop computers and even netbooks there 's no good reason not to stickpotentially vulnerable parts of your browser in a separate process and block it from accessing anything it does notabsolutely need to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's lovely and fussy and all things nice.
A world facing app like a web-browser should make use of it.Really with the performance of current desktop computers and even netbooks there's no good reason not to stickpotentially vulnerable parts of your browser in a separate process and block it from accessing anything it does notabsolutely need to deal with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30175942</id>
	<title>Extension Blocking</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1258750140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So is Firefox going to block these extensions for being unsafe, or are they only blocking the Flash plugin? Is it more to protect us, or more to attack Flash?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is Firefox going to block these extensions for being unsafe , or are they only blocking the Flash plugin ?
Is it more to protect us , or more to attack Flash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is Firefox going to block these extensions for being unsafe, or are they only blocking the Flash plugin?
Is it more to protect us, or more to attack Flash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171970</id>
	<title>Reality vs Probability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258736700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even with those security issues, I would still put money on Firefox being much better at keeping problems off a user's system than IE (for now).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with those security issues , I would still put money on Firefox being much better at keeping problems off a user 's system than IE ( for now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with those security issues, I would still put money on Firefox being much better at keeping problems off a user's system than IE (for now).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171586</id>
	<title>It's about trust</title>
	<author>TheCoders</author>
	<datestamp>1258734960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is not necessarily with Firefox's security model - Firefox never claimed that plugins were secure. The problem is with perception. Users need to be aware that installing a plugin is tantamount to installing an application. You wouldn't willy-nilly install any old software on your computer. (Well, some people would, but hopefully not too many who frequent Slashdot.) You should take the same caution when installing a plugin.</p><p>The problem is that there is a perception that since Firefox is trusted then its plugins should be trusted. Especially those that are listed in Firefox's official plugin repository. Maybe some more verification is necessary before admitting these plugins, and definitely some more user education is required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not necessarily with Firefox 's security model - Firefox never claimed that plugins were secure .
The problem is with perception .
Users need to be aware that installing a plugin is tantamount to installing an application .
You would n't willy-nilly install any old software on your computer .
( Well , some people would , but hopefully not too many who frequent Slashdot .
) You should take the same caution when installing a plugin.The problem is that there is a perception that since Firefox is trusted then its plugins should be trusted .
Especially those that are listed in Firefox 's official plugin repository .
Maybe some more verification is necessary before admitting these plugins , and definitely some more user education is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not necessarily with Firefox's security model - Firefox never claimed that plugins were secure.
The problem is with perception.
Users need to be aware that installing a plugin is tantamount to installing an application.
You wouldn't willy-nilly install any old software on your computer.
(Well, some people would, but hopefully not too many who frequent Slashdot.
) You should take the same caution when installing a plugin.The problem is that there is a perception that since Firefox is trusted then its plugins should be trusted.
Especially those that are listed in Firefox's official plugin repository.
Maybe some more verification is necessary before admitting these plugins, and definitely some more user education is required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30176682</id>
	<title>Zero day bollocks</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The term zero-day is being used far too often and I consider it a larger threat to my sanity than any FF extension is to my security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The term zero-day is being used far too often and I consider it a larger threat to my sanity than any FF extension is to my security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The term zero-day is being used far too often and I consider it a larger threat to my sanity than any FF extension is to my security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171602</id>
	<title>Yawn...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258735020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will get fixed in Firefox shortly &amp; then it will be even more secure.  What's the problem?</p><p>Either way, I'm so hooked on the 20 or so extensions that I use, that I'd never go back to anything else.  IE is the pits.  Chrome's speed just isn't a that big of a deal.  Opera is ok, but the users are worse than Mac snobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will get fixed in Firefox shortly &amp; then it will be even more secure .
What 's the problem ? Either way , I 'm so hooked on the 20 or so extensions that I use , that I 'd never go back to anything else .
IE is the pits .
Chrome 's speed just is n't a that big of a deal .
Opera is ok , but the users are worse than Mac snobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will get fixed in Firefox shortly &amp; then it will be even more secure.
What's the problem?Either way, I'm so hooked on the 20 or so extensions that I use, that I'd never go back to anything else.
IE is the pits.
Chrome's speed just isn't a that big of a deal.
Opera is ok, but the users are worse than Mac snobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30173960</id>
	<title>Re:I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1258743780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Already done my friend, you are telling me nothing new...but for the endless clients i have installed<br>their machines for them (like my grandma) and cant use that app (too hard)...i always felt some level of security adding FF to their installs so they could have a bit more confidence surfing the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Already done my friend , you are telling me nothing new...but for the endless clients i have installedtheir machines for them ( like my grandma ) and cant use that app ( too hard ) ...i always felt some level of security adding FF to their installs so they could have a bit more confidence surfing the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already done my friend, you are telling me nothing new...but for the endless clients i have installedtheir machines for them (like my grandma) and cant use that app (too hard)...i always felt some level of security adding FF to their installs so they could have a bit more confidence surfing the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30179162</id>
	<title>Re:Lobo?</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1258718640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course managed code cannot protect from ALL attacks, eg. integer overflow is still possible. But it can from quite a few. No more execute escalation even to user mode, no more overflow outside a buffer, impossible to access freed memory or with a wild pointer, etc.</p><p>Much better than FF or IE "track record".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course managed code can not protect from ALL attacks , eg .
integer overflow is still possible .
But it can from quite a few .
No more execute escalation even to user mode , no more overflow outside a buffer , impossible to access freed memory or with a wild pointer , etc.Much better than FF or IE " track record " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course managed code cannot protect from ALL attacks, eg.
integer overflow is still possible.
But it can from quite a few.
No more execute escalation even to user mode, no more overflow outside a buffer, impossible to access freed memory or with a wild pointer, etc.Much better than FF or IE "track record".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171352</id>
	<title>Zero Day</title>
	<author>siyavash</author>
	<datestamp>1258733880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could we please stop using "Zero Day"? It's silly. Doesn't fit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. imho. Or is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. becoming Fox News of IT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we please stop using " Zero Day " ?
It 's silly .
Does n't fit / .
imho. Or is / .
becoming Fox News of IT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we please stop using "Zero Day"?
It's silly.
Doesn't fit /.
imho. Or is /.
becoming Fox News of IT?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171616</id>
	<title>color me unsurprised</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258735080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always tried to keep a check on my addons for exactly this reason, the more code your running the more chance there is an exploitable bug in there somewhere. While steps can be taken to prevent an exploited addon doing damage, i don't think much can be done to prevent a buggy addon doing exactly what it sets out to do but wrongly.</p><p>The good news is that because all the functionality comes from addons they can be disabled and only affect users that want these features, so bob wanting to use his browser as an rssreader doesn't affect me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always tried to keep a check on my addons for exactly this reason , the more code your running the more chance there is an exploitable bug in there somewhere .
While steps can be taken to prevent an exploited addon doing damage , i do n't think much can be done to prevent a buggy addon doing exactly what it sets out to do but wrongly.The good news is that because all the functionality comes from addons they can be disabled and only affect users that want these features , so bob wanting to use his browser as an rssreader does n't affect me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always tried to keep a check on my addons for exactly this reason, the more code your running the more chance there is an exploitable bug in there somewhere.
While steps can be taken to prevent an exploited addon doing damage, i don't think much can be done to prevent a buggy addon doing exactly what it sets out to do but wrongly.The good news is that because all the functionality comes from addons they can be disabled and only affect users that want these features, so bob wanting to use his browser as an rssreader doesn't affect me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171342</id>
	<title>Chrome time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258733820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to switch to chrome until the holes are patched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to switch to chrome until the holes are patched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to switch to chrome until the holes are patched.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172502</id>
	<title>Re:0-day?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True.  A zero-day vulnerability is one that is found the same date the program is released.  So unless these extensions are all brand new, these are not 0-day incidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
A zero-day vulnerability is one that is found the same date the program is released .
So unless these extensions are all brand new , these are not 0-day incidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
A zero-day vulnerability is one that is found the same date the program is released.
So unless these extensions are all brand new, these are not 0-day incidents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30174576</id>
	<title>Re:It's about trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258745760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is not necessarily with Firefox's security model</p></div><p>
Doesn't Chrome run many firefox extensions in a "sandboxed" mode that is much more secure ?  If Chrome can do it why can't firefox ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not necessarily with Firefox 's security model Does n't Chrome run many firefox extensions in a " sandboxed " mode that is much more secure ?
If Chrome can do it why ca n't firefox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not necessarily with Firefox's security model
Doesn't Chrome run many firefox extensions in a "sandboxed" mode that is much more secure ?
If Chrome can do it why can't firefox ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</id>
	<title>Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258733760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't trust them, plus they use more memory (I only have 1/2 gig), and they make the machine run slower.  The only extensions I have are NoScript and ImageZoom and FlashVideoDownloader.  I try to keep it to a minimum to avoid security problems, memory waste, and slowdown</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't trust them , plus they use more memory ( I only have 1/2 gig ) , and they make the machine run slower .
The only extensions I have are NoScript and ImageZoom and FlashVideoDownloader .
I try to keep it to a minimum to avoid security problems , memory waste , and slowdown</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't trust them, plus they use more memory (I only have 1/2 gig), and they make the machine run slower.
The only extensions I have are NoScript and ImageZoom and FlashVideoDownloader.
I try to keep it to a minimum to avoid security problems, memory waste, and slowdown</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171640</id>
	<title>Re:Lobo?</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1258735200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm very much in favor of that. I would even like to help building a Java based browser (e.g. with a OSGi based plug-in system). But the thing is that these extensions use all kinds of technologies, but not C/C++ (as far as I could see). So if the browser was managed code you would have the same issues. Managed code helps against many bugs, but not against all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm very much in favor of that .
I would even like to help building a Java based browser ( e.g .
with a OSGi based plug-in system ) .
But the thing is that these extensions use all kinds of technologies , but not C/C + + ( as far as I could see ) .
So if the browser was managed code you would have the same issues .
Managed code helps against many bugs , but not against all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm very much in favor of that.
I would even like to help building a Java based browser (e.g.
with a OSGi based plug-in system).
But the thing is that these extensions use all kinds of technologies, but not C/C++ (as far as I could see).
So if the browser was managed code you would have the same issues.
Managed code helps against many bugs, but not against all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171508</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome time</title>
	<author>Basje</author>
	<datestamp>1258734660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or use a clean firefox without extensions.</p><p>Of course, without extensions there isn't much that sets firefox apart from chrome except for the license. Some purists will prefer firefox for that reason but it's pretty much a coin toss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or use a clean firefox without extensions.Of course , without extensions there is n't much that sets firefox apart from chrome except for the license .
Some purists will prefer firefox for that reason but it 's pretty much a coin toss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or use a clean firefox without extensions.Of course, without extensions there isn't much that sets firefox apart from chrome except for the license.
Some purists will prefer firefox for that reason but it's pretty much a coin toss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171860</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome time</title>
	<author>cmiller173</author>
	<datestamp>1258736220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or use the  " -profilemanager" switch on the shortcut that you launch Firefox with.  You could then have a profile that loads no extensions that you use when surfing untrustworthy sites. And a profile that does load your extensions when you doing normal surfing.

What I actually use it for is I have a profile that loads my development tools (Web Developer Toolbar, Firebug, and DOM Inspector) a profile for just normal surfing, and a profile with no extensions for when I need to be absolutely sure that the add-ons are not the cause of a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or use the " -profilemanager " switch on the shortcut that you launch Firefox with .
You could then have a profile that loads no extensions that you use when surfing untrustworthy sites .
And a profile that does load your extensions when you doing normal surfing .
What I actually use it for is I have a profile that loads my development tools ( Web Developer Toolbar , Firebug , and DOM Inspector ) a profile for just normal surfing , and a profile with no extensions for when I need to be absolutely sure that the add-ons are not the cause of a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or use the  " -profilemanager" switch on the shortcut that you launch Firefox with.
You could then have a profile that loads no extensions that you use when surfing untrustworthy sites.
And a profile that does load your extensions when you doing normal surfing.
What I actually use it for is I have a profile that loads my development tools (Web Developer Toolbar, Firebug, and DOM Inspector) a profile for just normal surfing, and a profile with no extensions for when I need to be absolutely sure that the add-ons are not the cause of a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171874</id>
	<title>Re:I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258736280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poe's Law strikes again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poe 's Law strikes again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poe's Law strikes again!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171584</id>
	<title>Go NoScript!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258734960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read the article ( <b>!</b> ) and saw NoScript mentioned; It seems that this can be exploited to whitelist sites within NoScript if FF has other addons installed. Scary stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article ( !
) and saw NoScript mentioned ; It seems that this can be exploited to whitelist sites within NoScript if FF has other addons installed .
Scary stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article ( !
) and saw NoScript mentioned; It seems that this can be exploited to whitelist sites within NoScript if FF has other addons installed.
Scary stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172046</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1258737060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A &ldquo;minimum&rdquo;, to me, would really be:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Adblock Plus<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Download Statusbar<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Video DownloadHelper<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; IE Tab<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Screengrab<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Tab Mix Plus</p><p>I don&rsquo;t know how much bloat I&rsquo;m adding by having them, but they all provide functionality that I really prefer not to do without. The only one that I&rsquo;d be willing to waive is Screengrab, but it&rsquo;s damn handy to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A    minimum    , to me , would really be :     Adblock Plus     Download Statusbar     Video DownloadHelper     IE Tab     Screengrab     Tab Mix PlusI don    t know how much bloat I    m adding by having them , but they all provide functionality that I really prefer not to do without .
The only one that I    d be willing to waive is Screengrab , but it    s damn handy to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A “minimum”, to me, would really be:
    Adblock Plus
    Download Statusbar
    Video DownloadHelper
    IE Tab
    Screengrab
    Tab Mix PlusI don’t know how much bloat I’m adding by having them, but they all provide functionality that I really prefer not to do without.
The only one that I’d be willing to waive is Screengrab, but it’s damn handy to have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172890</id>
	<title>Re:I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258739760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As it that would help if you&rsquo;re paranoid.</p><p>You haven&rsquo;t read about the Russian cracks where they got out of the virtual machine, by attacking it itself, and then wrapped a very thin VM around the entire outside OS, right between it and the metal.</p><p>In (Ex-)Soviet Russia, program virtualizes YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As it that would help if you    re paranoid.You haven    t read about the Russian cracks where they got out of the virtual machine , by attacking it itself , and then wrapped a very thin VM around the entire outside OS , right between it and the metal.In ( Ex- ) Soviet Russia , program virtualizes YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it that would help if you’re paranoid.You haven’t read about the Russian cracks where they got out of the virtual machine, by attacking it itself, and then wrapped a very thin VM around the entire outside OS, right between it and the metal.In (Ex-)Soviet Russia, program virtualizes YOU!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30175034</id>
	<title>SEX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258747260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox without extensions is like sex without a partner, yes it will get the job done but it's really boring. Extensions are not going away anytime soon, its half the reason FF is so popular and useful, somebody should write a "security cop" plugin and that somebody should be FF only meaning it should be built into the browser. One of the big reasons we switched to FF from IE is because of security, that is supposed to be the foundation of FF, the developers need to find a solution fast before FF becomes as big a joke as IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox without extensions is like sex without a partner , yes it will get the job done but it 's really boring .
Extensions are not going away anytime soon , its half the reason FF is so popular and useful , somebody should write a " security cop " plugin and that somebody should be FF only meaning it should be built into the browser .
One of the big reasons we switched to FF from IE is because of security , that is supposed to be the foundation of FF , the developers need to find a solution fast before FF becomes as big a joke as IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox without extensions is like sex without a partner, yes it will get the job done but it's really boring.
Extensions are not going away anytime soon, its half the reason FF is so popular and useful, somebody should write a "security cop" plugin and that somebody should be FF only meaning it should be built into the browser.
One of the big reasons we switched to FF from IE is because of security, that is supposed to be the foundation of FF, the developers need to find a solution fast before FF becomes as big a joke as IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172090</id>
	<title>Re:It's about trust</title>
	<author>wd5gnr</author>
	<datestamp>1258737240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the fact that extensions appear on the Mozilla add on site could give some users the impression that they are "trusted" in some way. By default, FF won't install except from there (and maybe one or two other sites). But as far as I know, there's no real check. I mean I'm sure if you put up a extension that wiped your hard drive, enough people would complain and comment that it would get yanked. But something more subtle, maybe not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the fact that extensions appear on the Mozilla add on site could give some users the impression that they are " trusted " in some way .
By default , FF wo n't install except from there ( and maybe one or two other sites ) .
But as far as I know , there 's no real check .
I mean I 'm sure if you put up a extension that wiped your hard drive , enough people would complain and comment that it would get yanked .
But something more subtle , maybe not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the fact that extensions appear on the Mozilla add on site could give some users the impression that they are "trusted" in some way.
By default, FF won't install except from there (and maybe one or two other sites).
But as far as I know, there's no real check.
I mean I'm sure if you put up a extension that wiped your hard drive, enough people would complain and comment that it would get yanked.
But something more subtle, maybe not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171836</id>
	<title>Thus proving...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258736040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. once again that <b>marketing &gt; reality</b>. Firefox has been around since 2003. The situation with extensions has been the same since 2003. Firefox has been enjoying a "Mac effect" where the lack of market share and platform knowledge convinced their users that it's invulnerable to hacks and extensions are safe. Same people who laugh at ActiveX without having a clear idea what the problem is, would claim extensions are totally safe and install them by the dozens. In the last couple of years we have seen increased reporting of security problems with Firefox, and the fans of yesterday explain this with Firefox "becoming bloatware" and hence "becoming insecure". Becoming? Hardly. These issues have been always there. Go back to the first releases and you'll see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. once again that marketing &gt; reality .
Firefox has been around since 2003 .
The situation with extensions has been the same since 2003 .
Firefox has been enjoying a " Mac effect " where the lack of market share and platform knowledge convinced their users that it 's invulnerable to hacks and extensions are safe .
Same people who laugh at ActiveX without having a clear idea what the problem is , would claim extensions are totally safe and install them by the dozens .
In the last couple of years we have seen increased reporting of security problems with Firefox , and the fans of yesterday explain this with Firefox " becoming bloatware " and hence " becoming insecure " .
Becoming ? Hardly .
These issues have been always there .
Go back to the first releases and you 'll see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. once again that marketing &gt; reality.
Firefox has been around since 2003.
The situation with extensions has been the same since 2003.
Firefox has been enjoying a "Mac effect" where the lack of market share and platform knowledge convinced their users that it's invulnerable to hacks and extensions are safe.
Same people who laugh at ActiveX without having a clear idea what the problem is, would claim extensions are totally safe and install them by the dozens.
In the last couple of years we have seen increased reporting of security problems with Firefox, and the fans of yesterday explain this with Firefox "becoming bloatware" and hence "becoming insecure".
Becoming? Hardly.
These issues have been always there.
Go back to the first releases and you'll see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540</id>
	<title>Re:I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>farlukar</author>
	<datestamp>1258734780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I will have to go back to using linx now because I trust nothing else...</p></div></blockquote><p>If you're that paranoid &mdash; use a virtual machine to browse the web and rollback to a trusted, clean snapshot a few times a day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will have to go back to using linx now because I trust nothing else...If you 're that paranoid    use a virtual machine to browse the web and rollback to a trusted , clean snapshot a few times a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will have to go back to using linx now because I trust nothing else...If you're that paranoid — use a virtual machine to browse the web and rollback to a trusted, clean snapshot a few times a day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30176652</id>
	<title>Re:I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1258709760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, on the contrary, am very happy because I use Opera precisely because of its security features.</p><p>I can surf any web page they post on reddit or digg without fear of viruses or trojans or endless javascript exploits or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , on the contrary , am very happy because I use Opera precisely because of its security features.I can surf any web page they post on reddit or digg without fear of viruses or trojans or endless javascript exploits or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, on the contrary, am very happy because I use Opera precisely because of its security features.I can surf any web page they post on reddit or digg without fear of viruses or trojans or endless javascript exploits or whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30179492</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258720140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice for you. I have 47 enabled extensions, and I need every single one. If I didn't need extensions I'd be using Chrome. As for slowdown, extensions allow you to automate things, so that's a speedup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice for you .
I have 47 enabled extensions , and I need every single one .
If I did n't need extensions I 'd be using Chrome .
As for slowdown , extensions allow you to automate things , so that 's a speedup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice for you.
I have 47 enabled extensions, and I need every single one.
If I didn't need extensions I'd be using Chrome.
As for slowdown, extensions allow you to automate things, so that's a speedup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171820</id>
	<title>Re:I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258735980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux is boring?  Sacrilege!  You get to read all those obscure docs and get into flamewars with developers.  How is that not fun?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Which reminds me, what Linux needs is something like what I had on my old Amiga PC:  A graphical way of interacting with the CLI so I don't have to remember all those obscure commands like "sudo -s -t<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/whatever"</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is boring ?
Sacrilege ! You get to read all those obscure docs and get into flamewars with developers .
How is that not fun ?
; - ) Which reminds me , what Linux needs is something like what I had on my old Amiga PC : A graphical way of interacting with the CLI so I do n't have to remember all those obscure commands like " sudo -s -t /whatever "    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is boring?
Sacrilege!  You get to read all those obscure docs and get into flamewars with developers.
How is that not fun?
;-)Which reminds me, what Linux needs is something like what I had on my old Amiga PC:  A graphical way of interacting with the CLI so I don't have to remember all those obscure commands like "sudo -s -t /whatever"
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171636</id>
	<title>Re:Browser vulnerabilities</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1258735140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought you were trolling, and then I read this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll be switching my law firm back to IE and looking into a lawsuit against all FF contributors for their grossly negligent behavior.</p></div><p> <a href="http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's\_Law" title="rationalwiki.com">Poe&rsquo;s Law</a> [rationalwiki.com] appears to be in full effect today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought you were trolling , and then I read this : I 'll be switching my law firm back to IE and looking into a lawsuit against all FF contributors for their grossly negligent behavior .
Poe    s Law [ rationalwiki.com ] appears to be in full effect today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought you were trolling, and then I read this:I'll be switching my law firm back to IE and looking into a lawsuit against all FF contributors for their grossly negligent behavior.
Poe’s Law [rationalwiki.com] appears to be in full effect today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171436</id>
	<title>Damned Activex Controls!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258734300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why Microsoft should turn off Activex Controls altogether.........oh wait........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why Microsoft should turn off Activex Controls altogether.........oh wait....... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why Microsoft should turn off Activex Controls altogether.........oh wait........</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172080</id>
	<title>Re:How did the "many eyes" miss this?</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1258737180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um... posting things on slashdot about exploits? The many eyes doesn't mean all security bugs will be fixed before software ships. It means that over time the open nature will mean that the bugs can be found and closed easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... posting things on slashdot about exploits ?
The many eyes does n't mean all security bugs will be fixed before software ships .
It means that over time the open nature will mean that the bugs can be found and closed easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... posting things on slashdot about exploits?
The many eyes doesn't mean all security bugs will be fixed before software ships.
It means that over time the open nature will mean that the bugs can be found and closed easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30181122</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>koogunmo</author>
	<datestamp>1258730160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NoScript has done some shady stuff in the past....<br><br>http://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users</htmltext>
<tokenext>NoScript has done some shady stuff in the past....http : //adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NoScript has done some shady stuff in the past....http://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171494</id>
	<title>Re:How did the "many eyes" miss this?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258734600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the point that they have been seen now, if those holes where in closed binary addons (like coolaris preview) then they would never have been seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the point that they have been seen now , if those holes where in closed binary addons ( like coolaris preview ) then they would never have been seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the point that they have been seen now, if those holes where in closed binary addons (like coolaris preview) then they would never have been seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30209220</id>
	<title>Yoono extension fixed</title>
	<author>toddpringle</author>
	<datestamp>1258987320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The vulnerability cited in the article for Yoono 6.1.1 was fixed in Yoono 6.2 which was released in August.  Just trying to get that word out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vulnerability cited in the article for Yoono 6.1.1 was fixed in Yoono 6.2 which was released in August .
Just trying to get that word out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vulnerability cited in the article for Yoono 6.1.1 was fixed in Yoono 6.2 which was released in August.
Just trying to get that word out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172910</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258739880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't trust extensions, yet you happily use <a href="http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1869" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">F</a> [nist.gov] <a href="http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1868" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">l</a> [nist.gov] <a href="http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1866" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">a</a> [nist.gov] <a href="http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1865" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">s</a> [nist.gov] <a href="http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1864" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">h.</a> [nist.gov] Brilliant!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't trust extensions , yet you happily use F [ nist.gov ] l [ nist.gov ] a [ nist.gov ] s [ nist.gov ] h. [ nist.gov ] Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't trust extensions, yet you happily use F [nist.gov] l [nist.gov] a [nist.gov] s [nist.gov] h. [nist.gov] Brilliant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171782</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258735860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a web developer I used the Web Developer Toolbar, Firebug, and DOM Inspector extensions daily.  I could not be as productive without them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a web developer I used the Web Developer Toolbar , Firebug , and DOM Inspector extensions daily .
I could not be as productive without them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a web developer I used the Web Developer Toolbar, Firebug, and DOM Inspector extensions daily.
I could not be as productive without them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30174302</id>
	<title>Re:I have to say, I am depressed...</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1258744860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, if they're that paranoid then do due diligence and stuff Firefox into that same virtual machine that IE is running inside for the same reason - then put Google Chrome on your PC computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , if they 're that paranoid then do due diligence and stuff Firefox into that same virtual machine that IE is running inside for the same reason - then put Google Chrome on your PC computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, if they're that paranoid then do due diligence and stuff Firefox into that same virtual machine that IE is running inside for the same reason - then put Google Chrome on your PC computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171758</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>JeffSpudrinski</author>
	<datestamp>1258735800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dang that Microsoft!!!  Why can't they just make more secure software????</p><p>Yeah...I know this wasn't Microsoft, but aren't the rules here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that we are somehow supposed to blame Microsoft for everything?</p><p>Get a Mac!</p><p>(note: I don't own a Mac and run IE almost exclusively)</p><p>-JJS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dang that Microsoft ! ! !
Why ca n't they just make more secure software ? ? ?
? Yeah...I know this was n't Microsoft , but are n't the rules here at / .
that we are somehow supposed to blame Microsoft for everything ? Get a Mac !
( note : I do n't own a Mac and run IE almost exclusively ) -JJS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dang that Microsoft!!!
Why can't they just make more secure software???
?Yeah...I know this wasn't Microsoft, but aren't the rules here at /.
that we are somehow supposed to blame Microsoft for everything?Get a Mac!
(note: I don't own a Mac and run IE almost exclusively)-JJS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171734</id>
	<title>Re:Yep that's why I avoid extensions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258735680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://firefoxhtml5test.webs.com/" title="webs.com" rel="nofollow">FUCK FIREFOX!</a> [webs.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK FIREFOX !
[ webs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK FIREFOX!
[webs.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171556</id>
	<title>Related link with more info on LWN</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1258734900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quick Google search found  <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/348769/" title="lwn.net">this interesting article</a> [lwn.net] from August of this year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick Google search found this interesting article [ lwn.net ] from August of this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick Google search found  this interesting article [lwn.net] from August of this year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30176652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30182926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30174576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30174302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30179162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30174322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30176438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30182880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30179492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30181122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30173960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1257232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30173960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30174302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30176652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30176438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30181122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30174322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30179492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30173948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30182880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30179162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30174576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30182926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30171602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1257232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1257232.30172502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
