<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_24_2141247</id>
	<title>Major IE8 Flaw Makes "Safe" Sites Unsafe</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259058720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>After this weekend's report of a <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/22/1419255/New-Attack-Fells-Internet-Explorer?art\_pos=1">dangerous flaw in IE</a> (which Microsoft <a href="http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Microsoft-confirms-critical-vulnerability-in-Internet-Explorer-867342.html">confirmed today</a>), <a href="mailto:intrudere@gm\%5B\%5D.com\%5B'ail'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">intrudere</a> points out an exclusive report in The Register on <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/internet\_explorer\_security\_flaw/">a new hole in IE8</a> that could allow an attacker to pull off cross-site scripting attacks on Web sites that ought, by rights, to be safe from XSS. This is according to two anonymous sources, who told El Reg that Microsoft had been notified of the vulnerability a few months ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After this weekend 's report of a dangerous flaw in IE ( which Microsoft confirmed today ) , intrudere points out an exclusive report in The Register on a new hole in IE8 that could allow an attacker to pull off cross-site scripting attacks on Web sites that ought , by rights , to be safe from XSS .
This is according to two anonymous sources , who told El Reg that Microsoft had been notified of the vulnerability a few months ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After this weekend's report of a dangerous flaw in IE (which Microsoft confirmed today), intrudere points out an exclusive report in The Register on a new hole in IE8 that could allow an attacker to pull off cross-site scripting attacks on Web sites that ought, by rights, to be safe from XSS.
This is according to two anonymous sources, who told El Reg that Microsoft had been notified of the vulnerability a few months ago.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30221364</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259070780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just talked with two people on separate networks who appear to have caught the same bug (fake antivirus, tries to close things like taskmgr, etc). The only common thing between the two users is that they were running IE8. It's been 8 or 9 years since IE6 came out, why is this thing still an open fucking door?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just talked with two people on separate networks who appear to have caught the same bug ( fake antivirus , tries to close things like taskmgr , etc ) .
The only common thing between the two users is that they were running IE8 .
It 's been 8 or 9 years since IE6 came out , why is this thing still an open fucking door ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just talked with two people on separate networks who appear to have caught the same bug (fake antivirus, tries to close things like taskmgr, etc).
The only common thing between the two users is that they were running IE8.
It's been 8 or 9 years since IE6 came out, why is this thing still an open fucking door?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220218</id>
	<title>IE8 is *not* vulnerable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the Microsoft Security Advisor 977981 IE5 and IE8 are *not* vulnerables:</p><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/977981.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/977981.mspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the Microsoft Security Advisor 977981 IE5 and IE8 are * not * vulnerables : http : //www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/977981.mspx [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the Microsoft Security Advisor 977981 IE5 and IE8 are *not* vulnerables:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/977981.mspx [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219834</id>
	<title>O RLY?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First flaw! I mean... POST!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First flaw !
I mean... POST !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First flaw!
I mean... POST!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220084</id>
	<title>Ummm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259063640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, the article says IE8 is not affected. Do the editors not scan the article at all? I must be new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , the article says IE8 is not affected .
Do the editors not scan the article at all ?
I must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, the article says IE8 is not affected.
Do the editors not scan the article at all?
I must be new here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220426</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259065140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First they make emails dangerous, now they do the same with 'safe' websites.</p><p>I'm going to be watching my back for Santa and the Tooth Fairy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they make emails dangerous , now they do the same with 'safe ' websites.I 'm going to be watching my back for Santa and the Tooth Fairy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they make emails dangerous, now they do the same with 'safe' websites.I'm going to be watching my back for Santa and the Tooth Fairy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220138</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259063820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure you should be feeling so smug?</p><p>Slashdot posted that Firefox may not be as secure as you might think it is.</p><p>http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/11/1626224/Firefox-Most-Vulnerable-Browser-Safari-Close?art\_pos=5</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure you should be feeling so smug ? Slashdot posted that Firefox may not be as secure as you might think it is.http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/11/1626224/Firefox-Most-Vulnerable-Browser-Safari-Close ? art \ _pos = 5</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure you should be feeling so smug?Slashdot posted that Firefox may not be as secure as you might think it is.http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/11/1626224/Firefox-Most-Vulnerable-Browser-Safari-Close?art\_pos=5</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220478</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1259065440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please go to the "a new hole in IE8" article.</p><p>And if you're looking for the article to *read* it... yes, you are new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please go to the " a new hole in IE8 " article.And if you 're looking for the article to * read * it... yes , you are new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please go to the "a new hole in IE8" article.And if you're looking for the article to *read* it... yes, you are new here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30228750</id>
	<title>Re:Now that other companies browser has a huge fla</title>
	<author>Bob Ince</author>
	<datestamp>1257190740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even without the security problem, I would disable XSS protection on my sites. If I've made a mistake and let an HTML-injection flaw in my app, chances are it'll still be vulnerable (since IE8's XSS protection is a pathetic string-hack on the HTML source which is insufficient to protect against anything but the most basic of attacks), so IE8 is offering only to obfuscate and not fix my problems.</p><p>Meanwhile if I allow XSS &ldquo;protection&rdquo;, I have a problem when someone legitimately uses a term in the query string that appears in the page and looks to IE like it might be dangerous. This is easy to do: just searching for &lsquo;&lt;style&gt;&rsquo; will often break the CSS of the search results page.</p><p>Not only that, but I'm also open to deliberate sabotage when an attacker looks at my source, finds some script they don't like, and puts it in the query string so that IE8 doesn't execute it. Certainly this can be used to deliberately disable things like frame-buster scripts, to get around redress attack protections. It is presumably a form of this deliberate attack crafting that leads to whatever the undisclosed vulnerability is.</p><p>So no, I don't think Google are wrong. IE8's XSS protection is utterly, utterly bogus. It adds only more complication and more problems to webmasters' lot and no real effective security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even without the security problem , I would disable XSS protection on my sites .
If I 've made a mistake and let an HTML-injection flaw in my app , chances are it 'll still be vulnerable ( since IE8 's XSS protection is a pathetic string-hack on the HTML source which is insufficient to protect against anything but the most basic of attacks ) , so IE8 is offering only to obfuscate and not fix my problems.Meanwhile if I allow XSS    protection    , I have a problem when someone legitimately uses a term in the query string that appears in the page and looks to IE like it might be dangerous .
This is easy to do : just searching for       will often break the CSS of the search results page.Not only that , but I 'm also open to deliberate sabotage when an attacker looks at my source , finds some script they do n't like , and puts it in the query string so that IE8 does n't execute it .
Certainly this can be used to deliberately disable things like frame-buster scripts , to get around redress attack protections .
It is presumably a form of this deliberate attack crafting that leads to whatever the undisclosed vulnerability is.So no , I do n't think Google are wrong .
IE8 's XSS protection is utterly , utterly bogus .
It adds only more complication and more problems to webmasters ' lot and no real effective security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even without the security problem, I would disable XSS protection on my sites.
If I've made a mistake and let an HTML-injection flaw in my app, chances are it'll still be vulnerable (since IE8's XSS protection is a pathetic string-hack on the HTML source which is insufficient to protect against anything but the most basic of attacks), so IE8 is offering only to obfuscate and not fix my problems.Meanwhile if I allow XSS “protection”, I have a problem when someone legitimately uses a term in the query string that appears in the page and looks to IE like it might be dangerous.
This is easy to do: just searching for ‘’ will often break the CSS of the search results page.Not only that, but I'm also open to deliberate sabotage when an attacker looks at my source, finds some script they don't like, and puts it in the query string so that IE8 doesn't execute it.
Certainly this can be used to deliberately disable things like frame-buster scripts, to get around redress attack protections.
It is presumably a form of this deliberate attack crafting that leads to whatever the undisclosed vulnerability is.So no, I don't think Google are wrong.
IE8's XSS protection is utterly, utterly bogus.
It adds only more complication and more problems to webmasters' lot and no real effective security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30222200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30223228</id>
	<title>And the moral of this story is:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259089620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "Friends don't let friends use Microsoft products without the services of a lawyer"</p><p>or was it, "in Soviet Redmond, browser uses you"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Friends do n't let friends use Microsoft products without the services of a lawyer " or was it , " in Soviet Redmond , browser uses you " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Friends don't let friends use Microsoft products without the services of a lawyer"or was it, "in Soviet Redmond, browser uses you"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30222200</id>
	<title>Now that other companies browser has a huge flaw!</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1259077800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When asked why they are disabling the XSS protection in IE8, Google responds that IE8 has a undiclosed vulnerability.  Anyone here think Google is just mud-slinging to disparrage the main competitor to Chrome?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When asked why they are disabling the XSS protection in IE8 , Google responds that IE8 has a undiclosed vulnerability .
Anyone here think Google is just mud-slinging to disparrage the main competitor to Chrome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When asked why they are disabling the XSS protection in IE8, Google responds that IE8 has a undiclosed vulnerability.
Anyone here think Google is just mud-slinging to disparrage the main competitor to Chrome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219854</id>
	<title>Breaking News</title>
	<author>BeaverAndrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259062560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh my gosh! Internet explorer is not safe to use? This is incredible hot, breaking news to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my gosh !
Internet explorer is not safe to use ?
This is incredible hot , breaking news to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my gosh!
Internet explorer is not safe to use?
This is incredible hot, breaking news to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220102</id>
	<title>It's not a bug</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1259063700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a feature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220184</id>
	<title>Yeah, and NEW technology</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259064060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... run injected code.</p></div><p>Damn! Code injection! Is that like Fuel Injection? So, I'll get better performance and speed from it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... run injected code.Damn !
Code injection !
Is that like Fuel Injection ?
So , I 'll get better performance and speed from it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... run injected code.Damn!
Code injection!
Is that like Fuel Injection?
So, I'll get better performance and speed from it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30221154</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking News</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1259069400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>...times like this that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. really need a "Funny-but-Damned-Clever" mod.</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>...times like this that / .
really need a " Funny-but-Damned-Clever " mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...times like this that /.
really need a "Funny-but-Damned-Clever" mod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30225126</id>
	<title>Tagged "DefectiveBydesign" and "Haha"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't surprise me M$ would have another failure on top of their <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/177855" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Vista</a> [slashdot.org] being a failure.  M$ treats their fanbois  just as any other drug dealer treats their addicts.  SO M$ keep designing your non-free crapware so the rational people will flee to free software such as GUN/Linux, Lynx, and LaTeX; while the M$ addicts will continue to use bug filled, non-free crapware such as M$ Windoze, M$ Office, M$ Internet Exploder or its knockoffs Opera and the supposedly free Firefux and Openoffice, and anything from a M$ follower such as Adobe, Nero, Corel, Goldwave, etc.  It will be too late once the M$ addicts realize they are being duped by M$ as their personal information will be stolen by crackers who utilize fatal M$ security flaws.</p><p>--<br>Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.<br>Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't surprise me M $ would have another failure on top of their Vista [ slashdot.org ] being a failure .
M $ treats their fanbois just as any other drug dealer treats their addicts .
SO M $ keep designing your non-free crapware so the rational people will flee to free software such as GUN/Linux , Lynx , and LaTeX ; while the M $ addicts will continue to use bug filled , non-free crapware such as M $ Windoze , M $ Office , M $ Internet Exploder or its knockoffs Opera and the supposedly free Firefux and Openoffice , and anything from a M $ follower such as Adobe , Nero , Corel , Goldwave , etc .
It will be too late once the M $ addicts realize they are being duped by M $ as their personal information will be stolen by crackers who utilize fatal M $ security flaws.--Friends do n't help friends install M $ junk.Friends do assist M $ addicted friends in committing suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't surprise me M$ would have another failure on top of their Vista [slashdot.org] being a failure.
M$ treats their fanbois  just as any other drug dealer treats their addicts.
SO M$ keep designing your non-free crapware so the rational people will flee to free software such as GUN/Linux, Lynx, and LaTeX; while the M$ addicts will continue to use bug filled, non-free crapware such as M$ Windoze, M$ Office, M$ Internet Exploder or its knockoffs Opera and the supposedly free Firefux and Openoffice, and anything from a M$ follower such as Adobe, Nero, Corel, Goldwave, etc.
It will be too late once the M$ addicts realize they are being duped by M$ as their personal information will be stolen by crackers who utilize fatal M$ security flaws.--Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220094</id>
	<title>Redundant</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1259063640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"IE8 Flaw" is, in and of itself, a redundancy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" IE8 Flaw " is , in and of itself , a redundancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"IE8 Flaw" is, in and of itself, a redundancy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30230290</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1257154860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An <b>independant</b> study is not (a) one funded by Microsoft or (b) one performed by a company that Microsoft has a large financial stake in. Please point me to <b>ANY</b> independent study that does not fit into category (a) or category (b) or both.

</p><p>That aside, such statistics are irrelevant when one takes into account that if a Firefox vulnerability is reported and fixed/not fixed, the whole world knows about it or can at least look it up on the Firefox dev sites... while in the meantime, if an IE vulnerability is reported, Microsoft tries to hide it, squelches as many references to it that it can, and has even denied that such an issue exists - at least until some half assed patch (that often does not fully address the issue -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net anyone?) is released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An independant study is not ( a ) one funded by Microsoft or ( b ) one performed by a company that Microsoft has a large financial stake in .
Please point me to ANY independent study that does not fit into category ( a ) or category ( b ) or both .
That aside , such statistics are irrelevant when one takes into account that if a Firefox vulnerability is reported and fixed/not fixed , the whole world knows about it or can at least look it up on the Firefox dev sites... while in the meantime , if an IE vulnerability is reported , Microsoft tries to hide it , squelches as many references to it that it can , and has even denied that such an issue exists - at least until some half assed patch ( that often does not fully address the issue - .Net anyone ?
) is released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An independant study is not (a) one funded by Microsoft or (b) one performed by a company that Microsoft has a large financial stake in.
Please point me to ANY independent study that does not fit into category (a) or category (b) or both.
That aside, such statistics are irrelevant when one takes into account that if a Firefox vulnerability is reported and fixed/not fixed, the whole world knows about it or can at least look it up on the Firefox dev sites... while in the meantime, if an IE vulnerability is reported, Microsoft tries to hide it, squelches as many references to it that it can, and has even denied that such an issue exists - at least until some half assed patch (that often does not fully address the issue - .Net anyone?
) is released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220328</id>
	<title>I got some advice for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259064720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll show you a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq9BDjMDRRk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">flaw</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll show you a flaw [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll show you a flaw [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30221224</id>
	<title>Re:See, Microsoft is right,Christmas gifts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259069760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219998</id>
	<title>Got to love (joke) the MS spin</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1259063280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The bug is not, however, present in Internet Explorer 5.01 SP4 or Internet Explorer 8.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Oh, wait. IE8 has a bunch of other security flaws that make it insecure anyway, and nobody would think to use IE 5.x on anything worth protecting.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bug is not , however , present in Internet Explorer 5.01 SP4 or Internet Explorer 8 .
Oh , wait .
IE8 has a bunch of other security flaws that make it insecure anyway , and nobody would think to use IE 5.x on anything worth protecting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The bug is not, however, present in Internet Explorer 5.01 SP4 or Internet Explorer 8.
Oh, wait.
IE8 has a bunch of other security flaws that make it insecure anyway, and nobody would think to use IE 5.x on anything worth protecting.  
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30224420</id>
	<title>A little bit more information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257162000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently <a href="http://hackademix.net/2009/11/21/ies-xss-filter-creates-xss-vulnerabilities/" title="hackademix.net" rel="nofollow">Giorgio Maone</a> [hackademix.net] (the guy who maintains NoScript) was one of the people who discovered this hole and told Microsoft about it many months ago. After the Register article, he gave away a few tidbits of information on how this works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently Giorgio Maone [ hackademix.net ] ( the guy who maintains NoScript ) was one of the people who discovered this hole and told Microsoft about it many months ago .
After the Register article , he gave away a few tidbits of information on how this works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently Giorgio Maone [hackademix.net] (the guy who maintains NoScript) was one of the people who discovered this hole and told Microsoft about it many months ago.
After the Register article, he gave away a few tidbits of information on how this works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220286</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259064540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The browser is a still an integral part of the OS.  All else follows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The browser is a still an integral part of the OS .
All else follows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The browser is a still an integral part of the OS.
All else follows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220168</id>
	<title>Would anyone know they were infected?</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259063940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The exploit currently doing the rounds is not particularly stable and often just causes the browser to crash.</p> </div><p>I doesn't sound like much of a threat and if anything, folks may think it's a bug and move to IE 8 or to another browser all together - solving the problem without installing any fixes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The exploit currently doing the rounds is not particularly stable and often just causes the browser to crash .
I does n't sound like much of a threat and if anything , folks may think it 's a bug and move to IE 8 or to another browser all together - solving the problem without installing any fixes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The exploit currently doing the rounds is not particularly stable and often just causes the browser to crash.
I doesn't sound like much of a threat and if anything, folks may think it's a bug and move to IE 8 or to another browser all together - solving the problem without installing any fixes.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30222804</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1259083620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Yes, because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability. At least IE runs sandboxed."</p></div></blockquote><p>I think you are going overboard there. Just because Microsoft IE engineers have their head in the sand, that's no reason to call the whole project sandboxed.  You inspired me to write a little one question deductive reasoning test, just for you:<br> <br> <b>Q:</b> The degree and number of IE security problems compared to Firefox is like: <br> <br> <b>A)</b> <i>The number of people starving in Ethiopia compared to the number of people who couldn't Super-Size their McDonald's order today</i> <br> <b>B)</b> <i>The death toll in a plane crash compared to the death toll in a skateboarding accident</i> <br> <b>C)</b> <i>The pain involved in being shot in the stomach by a twelve gauge compared to the pain of a hangnail</i> <br> <b>D)</b> <i>All of the above</i> <br> <br>Good luck, and don't forget to phone a friend if possible!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes , because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability .
At least IE runs sandboxed .
" I think you are going overboard there .
Just because Microsoft IE engineers have their head in the sand , that 's no reason to call the whole project sandboxed .
You inspired me to write a little one question deductive reasoning test , just for you : Q : The degree and number of IE security problems compared to Firefox is like : A ) The number of people starving in Ethiopia compared to the number of people who could n't Super-Size their McDonald 's order today B ) The death toll in a plane crash compared to the death toll in a skateboarding accident C ) The pain involved in being shot in the stomach by a twelve gauge compared to the pain of a hangnail D ) All of the above Good luck , and do n't forget to phone a friend if possible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes, because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability.
At least IE runs sandboxed.
"I think you are going overboard there.
Just because Microsoft IE engineers have their head in the sand, that's no reason to call the whole project sandboxed.
You inspired me to write a little one question deductive reasoning test, just for you:  Q: The degree and number of IE security problems compared to Firefox is like:   A) The number of people starving in Ethiopia compared to the number of people who couldn't Super-Size their McDonald's order today  B) The death toll in a plane crash compared to the death toll in a skateboarding accident  C) The pain involved in being shot in the stomach by a twelve gauge compared to the pain of a hangnail  D) All of the above  Good luck, and don't forget to phone a friend if possible!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220302</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259064600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought 2 other independent studies just showed that Firefox has more vulnerabilities than IE8. At least there was a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. submission about it. Selective readers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought 2 other independent studies just showed that Firefox has more vulnerabilities than IE8 .
At least there was a / .
submission about it .
Selective readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought 2 other independent studies just showed that Firefox has more vulnerabilities than IE8.
At least there was a /.
submission about it.
Selective readers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220846</id>
	<title>That seems like a really strange thing to do...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1259067480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that if the IE team is capable of telling that a combination of features is potentially dangerous, then why would they edit the source of the page to avoid triggering the vulnerability, rather than actually eliminating the vulnerability being attacked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that if the IE team is capable of telling that a combination of features is potentially dangerous , then why would they edit the source of the page to avoid triggering the vulnerability , rather than actually eliminating the vulnerability being attacked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that if the IE team is capable of telling that a combination of features is potentially dangerous, then why would they edit the source of the page to avoid triggering the vulnerability, rather than actually eliminating the vulnerability being attacked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220680</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 is *not* vulnerable</title>
	<author>praseodym</author>
	<datestamp>1259066460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except, that was the FIRST security flaw linked in the article. The SECOND one (at The Register) is about a different security flaw, in the XSS filter. The XSS filter is new in IE8.</p><p>And, BTW, Google does indeed disable it so that they are not vulnerable to the flaw: their servers send a "X-XSS-Protection: 0" header.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except , that was the FIRST security flaw linked in the article .
The SECOND one ( at The Register ) is about a different security flaw , in the XSS filter .
The XSS filter is new in IE8.And , BTW , Google does indeed disable it so that they are not vulnerable to the flaw : their servers send a " X-XSS-Protection : 0 " header .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except, that was the FIRST security flaw linked in the article.
The SECOND one (at The Register) is about a different security flaw, in the XSS filter.
The XSS filter is new in IE8.And, BTW, Google does indeed disable it so that they are not vulnerable to the flaw: their servers send a "X-XSS-Protection: 0" header.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219820</id>
	<title>See, Microsoft is right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259062380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE8 is compatible with sites designed for IE6.  You won't see other browsers going the extra mile like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE8 is compatible with sites designed for IE6 .
You wo n't see other browsers going the extra mile like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE8 is compatible with sites designed for IE6.
You won't see other browsers going the extra mile like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30222474</id>
	<title>this FP f0r GNAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259080500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>states that there transfe8, Netscape baby...don't fear on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT Creek, abysmal con7ributed code dying. All major</htmltext>
<tokenext>states that there transfe8 , Netscape baby...do n't fear on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT Creek , abysmal con7ributed code dying .
All major</tokentext>
<sentencetext>states that there transfe8, Netscape baby...don't fear on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT Creek, abysmal con7ributed code dying.
All major</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rain is wet....</p><p>Despite MS best efforts, IE just won't shake it's 'insecure' tag, will it?</p><p>Part of me wonders if perhaps these vulnerabilities aren't being made a big deal of because of the reputation of IE6. The rest of me which started using Firefox a long time ago just feels smug and superior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rain is wet....Despite MS best efforts , IE just wo n't shake it 's 'insecure ' tag , will it ? Part of me wonders if perhaps these vulnerabilities are n't being made a big deal of because of the reputation of IE6 .
The rest of me which started using Firefox a long time ago just feels smug and superior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rain is wet....Despite MS best efforts, IE just won't shake it's 'insecure' tag, will it?Part of me wonders if perhaps these vulnerabilities aren't being made a big deal of because of the reputation of IE6.
The rest of me which started using Firefox a long time ago just feels smug and superior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30222602</id>
	<title>Enlighten me please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259081580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is "Internet Explorer"? You are talking about the ancient browser ? It is still alive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is " Internet Explorer " ?
You are talking about the ancient browser ?
It is still alive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is "Internet Explorer"?
You are talking about the ancient browser ?
It is still alive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30230148</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1257154080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability.  At least IE runs sandboxed.</p></div><p>Why you aren't marked troll, on a site with relatively technologically savvy people (and a decent collection of trolls making up the rest of it's populace) I don't know.

</p><p>The differences between IE and Firefox when it comes to security issues is... deep space and day on Earth.

</p><p>Why you ask?

</p><p>Start with no such software tends to truly be secure.

</p><p>When someone finds and posts about a security vulnerability in Firefox, it gets acknowledged and addressed. When someone posts about a security issue in IE, Microsoft sends takedown notices and threat letters, and then, if no one else has noticed the posts or issue, they pretend it isn't an issue or isnt serious until they get "taken to the mat" about it by the Internet populace.

</p><p>When the Firefox team fixes an issue, it is usually fixed... when Microsoft "fixes" security issues, they resurface numerous times afterwards because they were truly not fully fixed. As an example, I cite the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net fixes, the most recent one (the one noted due to the Firefox plugin snuck into a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net update) which was the SIXTH MAJOR attempt to fix the same issue. FIVE years and SIX MAJOR attempts (and who knows how many minor attempts) and this time they promise it is truly fixed. Really. They promise.

</p><p>Microsoft often takes months (and sometimes years) to release patches for vulnerabilities... the Firefox team is much quicker and usually (though not always) takes days or weeks.

</p><p>Should I go on?

</p><p>Every decent sized piece of software has problems. The key points that makes Firefox and IE bad comparisons aren't the number of issues (though in that respect, IE still has had far more as is evidenced by the security sites NOT owned by Microsoft (which are dwindling))... the key points are how they are dealt with.

</p><p>Software that cannot be patched (because the patches dont exist or take months or longer to be released) creates massive problems on the Internet (or a massive third party security suite market - or both) that encompasses large amounts of time (months of bots and such beating away at other machines). Software that can or is patched quickly minimizes such a scenario. That is simply very basic math. Take the number of infectable machines (even assume that IE and Firefox's market share is the same for this), multiply by the amount of days a patch does not exist, multiply by the amount of machines each can infect per day... now, with Microsoft's long time period between acknowledging and fixing such issues... which browser is better?


</p><p>As for IE being sandboxed... we have already noted (as numerous of the new vulnerabilities have proven) that such "technology" has not worked in either IE7 or IE8. So who cares that it is sandboxed? It doesn't work, thusly it doesn't matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability .
At least IE runs sandboxed.Why you are n't marked troll , on a site with relatively technologically savvy people ( and a decent collection of trolls making up the rest of it 's populace ) I do n't know .
The differences between IE and Firefox when it comes to security issues is... deep space and day on Earth .
Why you ask ?
Start with no such software tends to truly be secure .
When someone finds and posts about a security vulnerability in Firefox , it gets acknowledged and addressed .
When someone posts about a security issue in IE , Microsoft sends takedown notices and threat letters , and then , if no one else has noticed the posts or issue , they pretend it is n't an issue or isnt serious until they get " taken to the mat " about it by the Internet populace .
When the Firefox team fixes an issue , it is usually fixed... when Microsoft " fixes " security issues , they resurface numerous times afterwards because they were truly not fully fixed .
As an example , I cite the .Net fixes , the most recent one ( the one noted due to the Firefox plugin snuck into a .Net update ) which was the SIXTH MAJOR attempt to fix the same issue .
FIVE years and SIX MAJOR attempts ( and who knows how many minor attempts ) and this time they promise it is truly fixed .
Really. They promise .
Microsoft often takes months ( and sometimes years ) to release patches for vulnerabilities... the Firefox team is much quicker and usually ( though not always ) takes days or weeks .
Should I go on ?
Every decent sized piece of software has problems .
The key points that makes Firefox and IE bad comparisons are n't the number of issues ( though in that respect , IE still has had far more as is evidenced by the security sites NOT owned by Microsoft ( which are dwindling ) ) ... the key points are how they are dealt with .
Software that can not be patched ( because the patches dont exist or take months or longer to be released ) creates massive problems on the Internet ( or a massive third party security suite market - or both ) that encompasses large amounts of time ( months of bots and such beating away at other machines ) .
Software that can or is patched quickly minimizes such a scenario .
That is simply very basic math .
Take the number of infectable machines ( even assume that IE and Firefox 's market share is the same for this ) , multiply by the amount of days a patch does not exist , multiply by the amount of machines each can infect per day... now , with Microsoft 's long time period between acknowledging and fixing such issues... which browser is better ?
As for IE being sandboxed... we have already noted ( as numerous of the new vulnerabilities have proven ) that such " technology " has not worked in either IE7 or IE8 .
So who cares that it is sandboxed ?
It does n't work , thusly it does n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability.
At least IE runs sandboxed.Why you aren't marked troll, on a site with relatively technologically savvy people (and a decent collection of trolls making up the rest of it's populace) I don't know.
The differences between IE and Firefox when it comes to security issues is... deep space and day on Earth.
Why you ask?
Start with no such software tends to truly be secure.
When someone finds and posts about a security vulnerability in Firefox, it gets acknowledged and addressed.
When someone posts about a security issue in IE, Microsoft sends takedown notices and threat letters, and then, if no one else has noticed the posts or issue, they pretend it isn't an issue or isnt serious until they get "taken to the mat" about it by the Internet populace.
When the Firefox team fixes an issue, it is usually fixed... when Microsoft "fixes" security issues, they resurface numerous times afterwards because they were truly not fully fixed.
As an example, I cite the .Net fixes, the most recent one (the one noted due to the Firefox plugin snuck into a .Net update) which was the SIXTH MAJOR attempt to fix the same issue.
FIVE years and SIX MAJOR attempts (and who knows how many minor attempts) and this time they promise it is truly fixed.
Really. They promise.
Microsoft often takes months (and sometimes years) to release patches for vulnerabilities... the Firefox team is much quicker and usually (though not always) takes days or weeks.
Should I go on?
Every decent sized piece of software has problems.
The key points that makes Firefox and IE bad comparisons aren't the number of issues (though in that respect, IE still has had far more as is evidenced by the security sites NOT owned by Microsoft (which are dwindling))... the key points are how they are dealt with.
Software that cannot be patched (because the patches dont exist or take months or longer to be released) creates massive problems on the Internet (or a massive third party security suite market - or both) that encompasses large amounts of time (months of bots and such beating away at other machines).
Software that can or is patched quickly minimizes such a scenario.
That is simply very basic math.
Take the number of infectable machines (even assume that IE and Firefox's market share is the same for this), multiply by the amount of days a patch does not exist, multiply by the amount of machines each can infect per day... now, with Microsoft's long time period between acknowledging and fixing such issues... which browser is better?
As for IE being sandboxed... we have already noted (as numerous of the new vulnerabilities have proven) that such "technology" has not worked in either IE7 or IE8.
So who cares that it is sandboxed?
It doesn't work, thusly it doesn't matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30221954</id>
	<title>New IE8 security feature.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259075640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A New IE8 security feature... bug.... feature.... bug..... feature.... bug...... feature....bug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A New IE8 security feature... bug.... feature.... bug..... feature.... bug...... feature....bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A New IE8 security feature... bug.... feature.... bug..... feature.... bug...... feature....bug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220018</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259063340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability.  At least IE runs sandboxed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability .
At least IE runs sandboxed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability.
At least IE runs sandboxed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219928</id>
	<title>IE Unsafe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259062980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whodathunkit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whodathunkit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whodathunkit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30230290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30222804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30230148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30221224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30221364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30228750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30222200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2141247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30230290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30230148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30222804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30221364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30222200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30228750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30219820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30221224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2141247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2141247.30220094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
