<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_02_1539251</id>
	<title>Black Screen of Death Not Microsoft's Fault</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1259773140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence follows up to the <a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/01/1725249/Microsoft-Investigates-Windows-7-Black-Screen-of-Death">ongoing Black Screen of Death Saga</a> by saying <i>"Microsoft says reports of <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/353806/microsoft-black-screen-of-death-not-our-fault">'Black Screen of Death' errors aren't caused by Windows Updates</a>, as claimed by a British security firm. The software giant claims November's Windows Updates didn't alter registry keys in the way described by Prevx, which said that the Microsoft Patches caused PCs to boot with just a black screen and a Windows Explorer window. <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2009/12/01/reports-of-issues-with-november-security-updates.aspx">Microsoft is now blaming the problem on malware</a>. Prevx has issued a <a href="http://www.prevx.com/blog/141/Windows-Black-Screen-Root-Cause.html">grovelling apology on its own blog</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence follows up to the ongoing Black Screen of Death Saga by saying " Microsoft says reports of 'Black Screen of Death ' errors are n't caused by Windows Updates , as claimed by a British security firm .
The software giant claims November 's Windows Updates did n't alter registry keys in the way described by Prevx , which said that the Microsoft Patches caused PCs to boot with just a black screen and a Windows Explorer window .
Microsoft is now blaming the problem on malware .
Prevx has issued a grovelling apology on its own blog .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence follows up to the ongoing Black Screen of Death Saga by saying "Microsoft says reports of 'Black Screen of Death' errors aren't caused by Windows Updates, as claimed by a British security firm.
The software giant claims November's Windows Updates didn't alter registry keys in the way described by Prevx, which said that the Microsoft Patches caused PCs to boot with just a black screen and a Windows Explorer window.
Microsoft is now blaming the problem on malware.
Prevx has issued a grovelling apology on its own blog.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070</id>
	<title>System Registry</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1259604840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry.  It's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat.  Sure, they let you see the fish, but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.</p><p>The Windows registry has always been a bane of Windows use since it's inception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry .
It 's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat .
Sure , they let you see the fish , but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.The Windows registry has always been a bane of Windows use since it 's inception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry.
It's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat.
Sure, they let you see the fish, but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.The Windows registry has always been a bane of Windows use since it's inception.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300550</id>
	<title>Windows firewall does not block WGA spyware</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1259611560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows firewall does not block WGA and Adobe update, which are spyware that can deactivate your software.</p><p>ZoneAlarm unfortunately does not support Win7 at this moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows firewall does not block WGA and Adobe update , which are spyware that can deactivate your software.ZoneAlarm unfortunately does not support Win7 at this moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows firewall does not block WGA and Adobe update, which are spyware that can deactivate your software.ZoneAlarm unfortunately does not support Win7 at this moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30304328</id>
	<title>Shouldn't the registry be safe from this?</title>
	<author>Delgul</author>
	<datestamp>1259581380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few points that have to be made here:</p><p>1) There shouldn't be a possibility for software to change the registry directly, period.<br>2) IF there are such ways, who is to say it is malware? Some stupidly programmed regular software could do the trick too.<br>3) IF this as possible, your system should at least be able to recover from a corrupted registry.</p><p>It's all well and good to shift the blame to others, but the problem is still in the OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few points that have to be made here : 1 ) There should n't be a possibility for software to change the registry directly , period.2 ) IF there are such ways , who is to say it is malware ?
Some stupidly programmed regular software could do the trick too.3 ) IF this as possible , your system should at least be able to recover from a corrupted registry.It 's all well and good to shift the blame to others , but the problem is still in the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few points that have to be made here:1) There shouldn't be a possibility for software to change the registry directly, period.2) IF there are such ways, who is to say it is malware?
Some stupidly programmed regular software could do the trick too.3) IF this as possible, your system should at least be able to recover from a corrupted registry.It's all well and good to shift the blame to others, but the problem is still in the OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299406</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1259606280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the malware is the update.  They didn't have this problem before Windows Update did its thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the malware is the update .
They did n't have this problem before Windows Update did its thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the malware is the update.
They didn't have this problem before Windows Update did its thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300326</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1259610540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that ANY OS is safe from malware is a slashdot fallacy.  It's simply not the case anywhere, for any OS in history.  No OS protects the user from the user.</p><p>There is no proof that malware is as able to exploit its way to privilege escalation on Windows 7, and that's all any reasonable person can ask.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that ANY OS is safe from malware is a slashdot fallacy .
It 's simply not the case anywhere , for any OS in history .
No OS protects the user from the user.There is no proof that malware is as able to exploit its way to privilege escalation on Windows 7 , and that 's all any reasonable person can ask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that ANY OS is safe from malware is a slashdot fallacy.
It's simply not the case anywhere, for any OS in history.
No OS protects the user from the user.There is no proof that malware is as able to exploit its way to privilege escalation on Windows 7, and that's all any reasonable person can ask.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30303796</id>
	<title>Re:It's all just posturing.</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1259579640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Married women shouldn't be ****able.</p> </div><p>Many don't, after you marry them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Married women should n't be * * * * able .
Many do n't , after you marry them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Married women shouldn't be ****able.
Many don't, after you marry them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30302682</id>
	<title>I thought...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1259576040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the new security behind windows7 prohibited anything being able to alter the registry settings without having proper confirmation, as well, if this is the case, then they haven't done their homework, because those keys are not just any keys, they actually are integrated with windows directly and should not be able to be changed regardless if you have admin priviliges or not.</p><p>It is so their fault, but now the new thing is being able to push blame on malware, as<br>a) no one can defend the malware maker's , not even themselves.<br>b) because most do not know any better, they will dismiss this, and keep on using windows thinking it normal<br>for malware to be able to change registry settings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the new security behind windows7 prohibited anything being able to alter the registry settings without having proper confirmation , as well , if this is the case , then they have n't done their homework , because those keys are not just any keys , they actually are integrated with windows directly and should not be able to be changed regardless if you have admin priviliges or not.It is so their fault , but now the new thing is being able to push blame on malware , asa ) no one can defend the malware maker 's , not even themselves.b ) because most do not know any better , they will dismiss this , and keep on using windows thinking it normalfor malware to be able to change registry settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the new security behind windows7 prohibited anything being able to alter the registry settings without having proper confirmation, as well, if this is the case, then they haven't done their homework, because those keys are not just any keys, they actually are integrated with windows directly and should not be able to be changed regardless if you have admin priviliges or not.It is so their fault, but now the new thing is being able to push blame on malware, asa) no one can defend the malware maker's , not even themselves.b) because most do not know any better, they will dismiss this, and keep on using windows thinking it normalfor malware to be able to change registry settings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298946</id>
	<title>Groveling?</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1259604360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when does apologizing to someone for your own baseless accusations amount to "groveling"?</p><p>From the post in question:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Having narrowed down a specific trigger for this condition we've done quite a bit of testing and re-testing on the recent Windows patches including KB976098 and KB915597 as referred to in our previous blog. Since more specifically narrowing down the cause we have been able to exonerate these patches from being a contributory factor<br>. . .<br>We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused.</p></div><p>Wow. Way to kiss ass.</p><p>You know what would be even more pathetic and embarrassing than this kind of "groveling"? Standing behind claims that you know to be false.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does apologizing to someone for your own baseless accusations amount to " groveling " ? From the post in question : Having narrowed down a specific trigger for this condition we 've done quite a bit of testing and re-testing on the recent Windows patches including KB976098 and KB915597 as referred to in our previous blog .
Since more specifically narrowing down the cause we have been able to exonerate these patches from being a contributory factor .
. .We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused.Wow .
Way to kiss ass.You know what would be even more pathetic and embarrassing than this kind of " groveling " ?
Standing behind claims that you know to be false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does apologizing to someone for your own baseless accusations amount to "groveling"?From the post in question:Having narrowed down a specific trigger for this condition we've done quite a bit of testing and re-testing on the recent Windows patches including KB976098 and KB915597 as referred to in our previous blog.
Since more specifically narrowing down the cause we have been able to exonerate these patches from being a contributory factor.
. .We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused.Wow.
Way to kiss ass.You know what would be even more pathetic and embarrassing than this kind of "groveling"?
Standing behind claims that you know to be false.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299862</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair to George W. Bush (OMG!), all politicians are really horrible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair to George W. Bush ( OMG !
) , all politicians are really horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair to George W. Bush (OMG!
), all politicians are really horrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298872</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe if Windows was a little more impervious to malware, they wouldn't have this problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if Windows was a little more impervious to malware , they would n't have this problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if Windows was a little more impervious to malware, they wouldn't have this problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299034</id>
	<title>Re:Groveling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know what would be even more pathetic and embarrassing than this kind of "groveling"? Standing behind claims that you know to be false.</p></div><p>Naw.  That's how they do it in climate science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what would be even more pathetic and embarrassing than this kind of " groveling " ?
Standing behind claims that you know to be false.Naw .
That 's how they do it in climate science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what would be even more pathetic and embarrassing than this kind of "groveling"?
Standing behind claims that you know to be false.Naw.
That's how they do it in climate science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299042</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The malware <b>is</b> Windows 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The malware is Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The malware is Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299706</id>
	<title>Re:Not our fault</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1259607540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you cite where they said that?  I've seen "most secure version of IE" and "most secure version of Windows" but I've yet to see "most secure product on the market."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you cite where they said that ?
I 've seen " most secure version of IE " and " most secure version of Windows " but I 've yet to see " most secure product on the market .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you cite where they said that?
I've seen "most secure version of IE" and "most secure version of Windows" but I've yet to see "most secure product on the market.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300572</id>
	<title>Re:Worst. Summary. Ever.</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1259611620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) How is being a stupid, ignorant, piece of crap not your fault?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) How is being a stupid , ignorant , piece of crap not your fault ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) How is being a stupid, ignorant, piece of crap not your fault?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299900</id>
	<title>It's all just posturing.</title>
	<author>Crasty</author>
	<datestamp>1259608380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fact of the matter is, OS's should be Malware free.  But also, copy protected software shouldn't be crackable.  Encoded movies shouldn't be copyable.  Married women shouldn't be ****able.  Banks shouldn't be robbable. <p>

Anytime somebody wants bad enough to accomplish something, they will.  The real thing protecting Apple and Linux...  lack of market share.  The pros don't target bums for the big heist.  If you you are going to put effort into something, you do it for the returns, and writing a devastating linux/mac malware (when linux varieties are far less standardized than MS OS's, and mac has 80\%+ less market share) just isn't going to get you the attention/money etc. that tampering with the market share leader will accomplish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact of the matter is , OS 's should be Malware free .
But also , copy protected software should n't be crackable .
Encoded movies should n't be copyable .
Married women should n't be * * * * able .
Banks should n't be robbable .
Anytime somebody wants bad enough to accomplish something , they will .
The real thing protecting Apple and Linux... lack of market share .
The pros do n't target bums for the big heist .
If you you are going to put effort into something , you do it for the returns , and writing a devastating linux/mac malware ( when linux varieties are far less standardized than MS OS 's , and mac has 80 \ % + less market share ) just is n't going to get you the attention/money etc .
that tampering with the market share leader will accomplish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact of the matter is, OS's should be Malware free.
But also, copy protected software shouldn't be crackable.
Encoded movies shouldn't be copyable.
Married women shouldn't be ****able.
Banks shouldn't be robbable.
Anytime somebody wants bad enough to accomplish something, they will.
The real thing protecting Apple and Linux...  lack of market share.
The pros don't target bums for the big heist.
If you you are going to put effort into something, you do it for the returns, and writing a devastating linux/mac malware (when linux varieties are far less standardized than MS OS's, and mac has 80\%+ less market share) just isn't going to get you the attention/money etc.
that tampering with the market share leader will accomplish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301720</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>CmdrPorno</author>
	<datestamp>1259573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  Which means it is Microsoft's fault after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Which means it is Microsoft 's fault after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Which means it is Microsoft's fault after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301024</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahem. Could you please give me some pointers then how one can set a DWORD with value null? Using AD and MMC. Or how about creating those pesky management template files? What's that? Oh...You have to create those manually using some cryptic schema. And what if I want to reset my template to default old values? Oh, I'm sorry... that's not possible.</p><p>What I'm trying to say, is that AD has it's place. But when you need to do something that microsoft has not thought about, it get's very quickly back to editing regitry, creating scripts and hacking away in general.</p><p>If you need AD'like functionality on Linux/bsd whatever, check out cfengine which is a policy based management engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahem .
Could you please give me some pointers then how one can set a DWORD with value null ?
Using AD and MMC .
Or how about creating those pesky management template files ?
What 's that ?
Oh...You have to create those manually using some cryptic schema .
And what if I want to reset my template to default old values ?
Oh , I 'm sorry... that 's not possible.What I 'm trying to say , is that AD has it 's place .
But when you need to do something that microsoft has not thought about , it get 's very quickly back to editing regitry , creating scripts and hacking away in general.If you need AD'like functionality on Linux/bsd whatever , check out cfengine which is a policy based management engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahem.
Could you please give me some pointers then how one can set a DWORD with value null?
Using AD and MMC.
Or how about creating those pesky management template files?
What's that?
Oh...You have to create those manually using some cryptic schema.
And what if I want to reset my template to default old values?
Oh, I'm sorry... that's not possible.What I'm trying to say, is that AD has it's place.
But when you need to do something that microsoft has not thought about, it get's very quickly back to editing regitry, creating scripts and hacking away in general.If you need AD'like functionality on Linux/bsd whatever, check out cfengine which is a policy based management engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300110</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1259609460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To apply your analogy properly, Steve Ballmer would have to blame Bill Gates for all of Microsoft's problems.  Oh wait!</htmltext>
<tokenext>To apply your analogy properly , Steve Ballmer would have to blame Bill Gates for all of Microsoft 's problems .
Oh wait !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To apply your analogy properly, Steve Ballmer would have to blame Bill Gates for all of Microsoft's problems.
Oh wait!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30302612</id>
	<title>Black screen of death heh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didja try turning the monitor on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Didja try turning the monitor on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didja try turning the monitor on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301714</id>
	<title>Re:It's all just posturing.</title>
	<author>joeyblades</author>
	<datestamp>1259573160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with this premise. Not that Mac OS has less market share - that's clearly factual. The part I disagree with is your assumption of impact. If I wanted to develop malware I wouldn't choose the platform where there are thousands of people on the lookout for it and a large portion of the market has software tools installed to fight against it. I would choose the system that is more open and most of the users blindly/blithely assume they are safe.</p><p>In other words, the Windows market share that is susceptible is lower than the Mac OS market share that is susceptible. Also, given that Mac users tend to be in better economic positions than Windows users (in general), a well placed piece of malware on the Mac would get the perpetrator much more publicity/visibility.</p><p>Plus, imagine the kudos from the hacker community for the wizard that is the first to pull it off...</p><p>No, I don't think market share - as you measure it - has anything to do with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with this premise .
Not that Mac OS has less market share - that 's clearly factual .
The part I disagree with is your assumption of impact .
If I wanted to develop malware I would n't choose the platform where there are thousands of people on the lookout for it and a large portion of the market has software tools installed to fight against it .
I would choose the system that is more open and most of the users blindly/blithely assume they are safe.In other words , the Windows market share that is susceptible is lower than the Mac OS market share that is susceptible .
Also , given that Mac users tend to be in better economic positions than Windows users ( in general ) , a well placed piece of malware on the Mac would get the perpetrator much more publicity/visibility.Plus , imagine the kudos from the hacker community for the wizard that is the first to pull it off...No , I do n't think market share - as you measure it - has anything to do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with this premise.
Not that Mac OS has less market share - that's clearly factual.
The part I disagree with is your assumption of impact.
If I wanted to develop malware I wouldn't choose the platform where there are thousands of people on the lookout for it and a large portion of the market has software tools installed to fight against it.
I would choose the system that is more open and most of the users blindly/blithely assume they are safe.In other words, the Windows market share that is susceptible is lower than the Mac OS market share that is susceptible.
Also, given that Mac users tend to be in better economic positions than Windows users (in general), a well placed piece of malware on the Mac would get the perpetrator much more publicity/visibility.Plus, imagine the kudos from the hacker community for the wizard that is the first to pull it off...No, I don't think market share - as you measure it - has anything to do with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299172</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DId you rad the link? this is not being reported by very many people at all.</p><p>And in fact, it isn't their problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DId you rad the link ?
this is not being reported by very many people at all.And in fact , it is n't their problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DId you rad the link?
this is not being reported by very many people at all.And in fact, it isn't their problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299262</id>
	<title>Not our fault</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259605560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft claimed that IE 8 was the most secure browser on the planet, and that Windows 7 was the most secure OS ever. It clearly isn't their fault for making an insecure OS that is subject to malware.</p><p>That is simply impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft claimed that IE 8 was the most secure browser on the planet , and that Windows 7 was the most secure OS ever .
It clearly is n't their fault for making an insecure OS that is subject to malware.That is simply impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft claimed that IE 8 was the most secure browser on the planet, and that Windows 7 was the most secure OS ever.
It clearly isn't their fault for making an insecure OS that is subject to malware.That is simply impossible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298944</id>
	<title>KB976036 has conflict with Comodo Firewall</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1259604360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a bunch of machines that can't properly shut down after this update (time zone update) is applied. It takes me few hours to isolate this thanks to some instant recovery software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a bunch of machines that ca n't properly shut down after this update ( time zone update ) is applied .
It takes me few hours to isolate this thanks to some instant recovery software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a bunch of machines that can't properly shut down after this update (time zone update) is applied.
It takes me few hours to isolate this thanks to some instant recovery software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299510</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>palmerj3</author>
	<datestamp>1259606760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Our Death Screens are blue! PWND!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Our Death Screens are blue !
PWND ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Our Death Screens are blue!
PWND!"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299106</id>
	<title>Groveling?</title>
	<author>Psychotic\_Wrath</author>
	<datestamp>1259604960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This doesn't exactly sound like groveling
<div><p><div class="quote"><p>We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused.</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't exactly sound like groveling We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't exactly sound like groveling
We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any OS is susceptible to malware. Malware is what users <em>explicitly</em> run, and then it does bad things to their system. You can't secure against that, and no OS on the market today does that. You can pop up tons of prompts, but then it's the "dancing bunnies" problem - depending on how enticing the malware author can make it sound, the user can be convinced to click "Yes" on each and every prompt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any OS is susceptible to malware .
Malware is what users explicitly run , and then it does bad things to their system .
You ca n't secure against that , and no OS on the market today does that .
You can pop up tons of prompts , but then it 's the " dancing bunnies " problem - depending on how enticing the malware author can make it sound , the user can be convinced to click " Yes " on each and every prompt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any OS is susceptible to malware.
Malware is what users explicitly run, and then it does bad things to their system.
You can't secure against that, and no OS on the market today does that.
You can pop up tons of prompts, but then it's the "dancing bunnies" problem - depending on how enticing the malware author can make it sound, the user can be convinced to click "Yes" on each and every prompt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299922</id>
	<title>Re:Malware, still?</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1259608500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, your suspicion is wrong. It is not very easy to log on with full administrator rights. OTHO, it is quite easy to click the "OK" button on the UAC window that asks you if you want to give a running program full administrator rights. And we all know that any dialog should be answered with "OK" and "Yes," because it is a good thing to let the computer do its job - after all, you're just human. Then again, when was the last time you read all the road sings while driving? In my city, they put some new traffic semaphores to ease driving through a big intersection and only in the morning of the first day they were turned on there were five accidents. People don't even see blinking lights any more! The fact is people are getting used to ignoring information, no matter how you show it to them. This may be caused by exceeding stupidity or by the vast amount of useless information we are constantly bombarded with.</p><p>One way to fix this would be if the computer would only work if the users would attach a sensor to their genital organs. The next step would be to use the same wires to shock the users every time they are presented with a question. The final step would be to allow the computer to function properly for the users after they had a minimum of one year of training.<br>The other way would be to attach shock-wires the programmers' genitals. Every time they add a question dialog box in their application they get shocked. That will ensure most applications will behave as expected, will go through usability tests and every nag the users get will be paid for by the programmers. (- replace "programmers" with whoever makes application design in your company). Now, I'm not saying application questions shouldn't be used, but they should be used sparingly.</p><p>Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , your suspicion is wrong .
It is not very easy to log on with full administrator rights .
OTHO , it is quite easy to click the " OK " button on the UAC window that asks you if you want to give a running program full administrator rights .
And we all know that any dialog should be answered with " OK " and " Yes , " because it is a good thing to let the computer do its job - after all , you 're just human .
Then again , when was the last time you read all the road sings while driving ?
In my city , they put some new traffic semaphores to ease driving through a big intersection and only in the morning of the first day they were turned on there were five accidents .
People do n't even see blinking lights any more !
The fact is people are getting used to ignoring information , no matter how you show it to them .
This may be caused by exceeding stupidity or by the vast amount of useless information we are constantly bombarded with.One way to fix this would be if the computer would only work if the users would attach a sensor to their genital organs .
The next step would be to use the same wires to shock the users every time they are presented with a question .
The final step would be to allow the computer to function properly for the users after they had a minimum of one year of training.The other way would be to attach shock-wires the programmers ' genitals .
Every time they add a question dialog box in their application they get shocked .
That will ensure most applications will behave as expected , will go through usability tests and every nag the users get will be paid for by the programmers .
( - replace " programmers " with whoever makes application design in your company ) .
Now , I 'm not saying application questions should n't be used , but they should be used sparingly.Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, your suspicion is wrong.
It is not very easy to log on with full administrator rights.
OTHO, it is quite easy to click the "OK" button on the UAC window that asks you if you want to give a running program full administrator rights.
And we all know that any dialog should be answered with "OK" and "Yes," because it is a good thing to let the computer do its job - after all, you're just human.
Then again, when was the last time you read all the road sings while driving?
In my city, they put some new traffic semaphores to ease driving through a big intersection and only in the morning of the first day they were turned on there were five accidents.
People don't even see blinking lights any more!
The fact is people are getting used to ignoring information, no matter how you show it to them.
This may be caused by exceeding stupidity or by the vast amount of useless information we are constantly bombarded with.One way to fix this would be if the computer would only work if the users would attach a sensor to their genital organs.
The next step would be to use the same wires to shock the users every time they are presented with a question.
The final step would be to allow the computer to function properly for the users after they had a minimum of one year of training.The other way would be to attach shock-wires the programmers' genitals.
Every time they add a question dialog box in their application they get shocked.
That will ensure most applications will behave as expected, will go through usability tests and every nag the users get will be paid for by the programmers.
(- replace "programmers" with whoever makes application design in your company).
Now, I'm not saying application questions shouldn't be used, but they should be used sparingly.Problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860</id>
	<title>malware...</title>
	<author>lorenzo.boccaccia</author>
	<datestamp>1259604000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>malware? there is no malware on windows 7! microsoft promised!</htmltext>
<tokenext>malware ?
there is no malware on windows 7 !
microsoft promised !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>malware?
there is no malware on windows 7!
microsoft promised!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30310872</id>
	<title>Update of 11/13</title>
	<author>hidave</author>
	<datestamp>1259858820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been unable to use Microsoft Outlook since the 11/13 update. System Restore didn't help. This is for Vista. I've had to switch to Windows Mail, which is much less user friendly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been unable to use Microsoft Outlook since the 11/13 update .
System Restore did n't help .
This is for Vista .
I 've had to switch to Windows Mail , which is much less user friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been unable to use Microsoft Outlook since the 11/13 update.
System Restore didn't help.
This is for Vista.
I've had to switch to Windows Mail, which is much less user friendly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306038</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry - how it ought to work</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1259589180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The structure of where things are stored in the registry is also an issue. Since registry keys are usually ordered based on how they are used, not which application they relate to. For example HKEY\_CLASSES\_ROOT/.ext or HKEY\_CLASSES\_ROOT/CLSID/{class id}.
</p><p>So installing any application that requires a number of OS services to be able to find it, means you have to pollute all kinds of registry keys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The structure of where things are stored in the registry is also an issue .
Since registry keys are usually ordered based on how they are used , not which application they relate to .
For example HKEY \ _CLASSES \ _ROOT/.ext or HKEY \ _CLASSES \ _ROOT/CLSID/ { class id } .
So installing any application that requires a number of OS services to be able to find it , means you have to pollute all kinds of registry keys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The structure of where things are stored in the registry is also an issue.
Since registry keys are usually ordered based on how they are used, not which application they relate to.
For example HKEY\_CLASSES\_ROOT/.ext or HKEY\_CLASSES\_ROOT/CLSID/{class id}.
So installing any application that requires a number of OS services to be able to find it, means you have to pollute all kinds of registry keys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299136</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's so much better to keep important system-wide configuration options scattered throughout a plethora of files and directories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's so much better to keep important system-wide configuration options scattered throughout a plethora of files and directories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's so much better to keep important system-wide configuration options scattered throughout a plethora of files and directories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300664</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1259612160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>depending on how enticing the malware author can make it sound, the user can be convinced to click "Yes" on each and every prompt.
--</p></div><p>Worse than that.  The user is trained, by the constant recurrence of that prompt, to <i>automatically</i> click yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>depending on how enticing the malware author can make it sound , the user can be convinced to click " Yes " on each and every prompt .
--Worse than that .
The user is trained , by the constant recurrence of that prompt , to automatically click yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>depending on how enticing the malware author can make it sound, the user can be convinced to click "Yes" on each and every prompt.
--Worse than that.
The user is trained, by the constant recurrence of that prompt, to automatically click yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299494</id>
	<title>Malware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Malware is what users explicitly run</p></div><p>I thought malware was a broad term used to cover viruses, worms, trojans, spyware and other bad software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Malware is what users explicitly runI thought malware was a broad term used to cover viruses , worms , trojans , spyware and other bad software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malware is what users explicitly runI thought malware was a broad term used to cover viruses, worms, trojans, spyware and other bad software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30307126</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259598540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's pretty much my thought, who made it possible that malware could infect the machine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty much my thought , who made it possible that malware could infect the machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty much my thought, who made it possible that malware could infect the machine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301872</id>
	<title>Re:Worst. Summary. Ever.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you, even though your summary is bit confusing too.</p><p>MS and the malware share blame for this, but the general issue is still very much a Windows</p><p>This sounds like a known issue:  Malware app modifies registry (improperly), Windows does poor checking of input data ('cause there's *never* corrupted data in the registry), and responds with a scary black screen.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - I prefer using a simple error message or alert box, but I'm very sure crashing to a big black screen really lets the client know he caused a boo-boo.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - Dramatic for a small bug perhaps, but very effective!</p><p>You can't blame MS for the corruption, but I'd still blame them for very poor handling on the reg key (a known issue that is currently still unresolved, I'm assuming).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , even though your summary is bit confusing too.MS and the malware share blame for this , but the general issue is still very much a WindowsThis sounds like a known issue : Malware app modifies registry ( improperly ) , Windows does poor checking of input data ( 'cause there 's * never * corrupted data in the registry ) , and responds with a scary black screen .
      - I prefer using a simple error message or alert box , but I 'm very sure crashing to a big black screen really lets the client know he caused a boo-boo .
      - Dramatic for a small bug perhaps , but very effective ! You ca n't blame MS for the corruption , but I 'd still blame them for very poor handling on the reg key ( a known issue that is currently still unresolved , I 'm assuming ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, even though your summary is bit confusing too.MS and the malware share blame for this, but the general issue is still very much a WindowsThis sounds like a known issue:  Malware app modifies registry (improperly), Windows does poor checking of input data ('cause there's *never* corrupted data in the registry), and responds with a scary black screen.
      - I prefer using a simple error message or alert box, but I'm very sure crashing to a big black screen really lets the client know he caused a boo-boo.
      - Dramatic for a small bug perhaps, but very effective!You can't blame MS for the corruption, but I'd still blame them for very poor handling on the reg key (a known issue that is currently still unresolved, I'm assuming).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299954</id>
	<title>4 possibilities</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259608680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) This thing happens although not as described by that vendor but somehow happens.</p><p>2) This is a major conspiracy by a major rival (e.g. Apple) to spread FUD about MS especially after Win 7 release.</p><p>3) This is the always mentioned (in theory) "evil virus" that is so good that it can't be even detected by current technology. (theorized since MS DOS)</p><p>4) This is a hoax by a large troll organization who can manage to send thousands of people, including slashdot account holders to say "yes, it happened to me too."</p><p>Trust me, even Apple can't get away with such a BSOD after update, even the "cult" won't let it. If you claim otherwise, you must be claiming one of the conspiracy theories above. This thing exists, it happens, it is not a major conspiracy and you do no good on behalf of MS when you claim "couple of random people" having it.</p><p>The side effect will hit US as usual, as Windows users now have second perfect excuse to turn off automatic updates. The first excuse was a damn legitimate one BTW, check WGA on Google. They installed it like a freaking trojan to their own users computers masking as something else.</p><p>ps: Black screen reminds me one of the "punishments" WGA does. Blacking the desktop background. Some routine got falsely triggered? Eh MS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) This thing happens although not as described by that vendor but somehow happens.2 ) This is a major conspiracy by a major rival ( e.g .
Apple ) to spread FUD about MS especially after Win 7 release.3 ) This is the always mentioned ( in theory ) " evil virus " that is so good that it ca n't be even detected by current technology .
( theorized since MS DOS ) 4 ) This is a hoax by a large troll organization who can manage to send thousands of people , including slashdot account holders to say " yes , it happened to me too .
" Trust me , even Apple ca n't get away with such a BSOD after update , even the " cult " wo n't let it .
If you claim otherwise , you must be claiming one of the conspiracy theories above .
This thing exists , it happens , it is not a major conspiracy and you do no good on behalf of MS when you claim " couple of random people " having it.The side effect will hit US as usual , as Windows users now have second perfect excuse to turn off automatic updates .
The first excuse was a damn legitimate one BTW , check WGA on Google .
They installed it like a freaking trojan to their own users computers masking as something else.ps : Black screen reminds me one of the " punishments " WGA does .
Blacking the desktop background .
Some routine got falsely triggered ?
Eh MS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) This thing happens although not as described by that vendor but somehow happens.2) This is a major conspiracy by a major rival (e.g.
Apple) to spread FUD about MS especially after Win 7 release.3) This is the always mentioned (in theory) "evil virus" that is so good that it can't be even detected by current technology.
(theorized since MS DOS)4) This is a hoax by a large troll organization who can manage to send thousands of people, including slashdot account holders to say "yes, it happened to me too.
"Trust me, even Apple can't get away with such a BSOD after update, even the "cult" won't let it.
If you claim otherwise, you must be claiming one of the conspiracy theories above.
This thing exists, it happens, it is not a major conspiracy and you do no good on behalf of MS when you claim "couple of random people" having it.The side effect will hit US as usual, as Windows users now have second perfect excuse to turn off automatic updates.
The first excuse was a damn legitimate one BTW, check WGA on Google.
They installed it like a freaking trojan to their own users computers masking as something else.ps: Black screen reminds me one of the "punishments" WGA does.
Blacking the desktop background.
Some routine got falsely triggered?
Eh MS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299474</id>
	<title>Even that won't solve it</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1259606580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two reasons:</p><p>1) Malware can be plenty problematic on just a single user's account. After all most people aren't running multi-user systems. For them, the system is their data, their account. As such even if the malware can't infect the whole system, infecting their account is all it needs to do. The only consolation to that is that virus scanners could remove it easier, but then that presumes they'll bother to run one.</p><p>2) People will give the malware admin permission. By default, Windows Vista and 7 make nobody an administrator. When UAC is on, you have to escalate to do administrative things. An "administrator" account is just one that can escalate without a password, you still have to give permission on a secure desktop. The problem is, people look at it as just another hoop to jump through. They say "Yes" any time the system asks. So they get some file "cute fluffy bunnies-totally not malware.exe" and they run it and 7 says "Hey, this needs admin, and has no digital signature. You sure you want to do that?" They click yes without thinking.</p><p>There really isn't a solution to this. Admin rights aren't the problem, people are the problem. Hell, I remember a virus we got hit with that, to get past virus scanners, put itself in an encrypted zip file. In the e-mail it gave you the password to decrypt the zip. So a user had to open the e-mail, save the zip to their system, open it up, get the password, decrypt the files, extract the malware, and run it. Guess what? We had no fewer than 3 that did. They jumped through a massive number of hoops to do that, you really think an admin prompt would have stopped them?</p><p>The best you can do is have good scanners that check incoming files and block them before people can infect themselves. That is an imperfect solution, but I've yet to hear of a better one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two reasons : 1 ) Malware can be plenty problematic on just a single user 's account .
After all most people are n't running multi-user systems .
For them , the system is their data , their account .
As such even if the malware ca n't infect the whole system , infecting their account is all it needs to do .
The only consolation to that is that virus scanners could remove it easier , but then that presumes they 'll bother to run one.2 ) People will give the malware admin permission .
By default , Windows Vista and 7 make nobody an administrator .
When UAC is on , you have to escalate to do administrative things .
An " administrator " account is just one that can escalate without a password , you still have to give permission on a secure desktop .
The problem is , people look at it as just another hoop to jump through .
They say " Yes " any time the system asks .
So they get some file " cute fluffy bunnies-totally not malware.exe " and they run it and 7 says " Hey , this needs admin , and has no digital signature .
You sure you want to do that ?
" They click yes without thinking.There really is n't a solution to this .
Admin rights are n't the problem , people are the problem .
Hell , I remember a virus we got hit with that , to get past virus scanners , put itself in an encrypted zip file .
In the e-mail it gave you the password to decrypt the zip .
So a user had to open the e-mail , save the zip to their system , open it up , get the password , decrypt the files , extract the malware , and run it .
Guess what ?
We had no fewer than 3 that did .
They jumped through a massive number of hoops to do that , you really think an admin prompt would have stopped them ? The best you can do is have good scanners that check incoming files and block them before people can infect themselves .
That is an imperfect solution , but I 've yet to hear of a better one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two reasons:1) Malware can be plenty problematic on just a single user's account.
After all most people aren't running multi-user systems.
For them, the system is their data, their account.
As such even if the malware can't infect the whole system, infecting their account is all it needs to do.
The only consolation to that is that virus scanners could remove it easier, but then that presumes they'll bother to run one.2) People will give the malware admin permission.
By default, Windows Vista and 7 make nobody an administrator.
When UAC is on, you have to escalate to do administrative things.
An "administrator" account is just one that can escalate without a password, you still have to give permission on a secure desktop.
The problem is, people look at it as just another hoop to jump through.
They say "Yes" any time the system asks.
So they get some file "cute fluffy bunnies-totally not malware.exe" and they run it and 7 says "Hey, this needs admin, and has no digital signature.
You sure you want to do that?
" They click yes without thinking.There really isn't a solution to this.
Admin rights aren't the problem, people are the problem.
Hell, I remember a virus we got hit with that, to get past virus scanners, put itself in an encrypted zip file.
In the e-mail it gave you the password to decrypt the zip.
So a user had to open the e-mail, save the zip to their system, open it up, get the password, decrypt the files, extract the malware, and run it.
Guess what?
We had no fewer than 3 that did.
They jumped through a massive number of hoops to do that, you really think an admin prompt would have stopped them?The best you can do is have good scanners that check incoming files and block them before people can infect themselves.
That is an imperfect solution, but I've yet to hear of a better one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300398</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry - how it ought to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259610780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Actually, the Registry is a good concept. The Registry is just a file system for little data items. The trouble is that any application can write to any part of it. It lacks a security model. (Yes, you can attach security restrictions to registry keys, but nobody does this, <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986" title="microsoft.com">because Windows 95 didn't have that,</a> [microsoft.com] and applications didn't have support for it.)
</p><p>
The big problem with Windows security is Microsoft never put a security model in place under the concept of program installation.  The way this ought to work is that there should be several classes of things one can install. Call them "applications", "plugins", "middleware", and "system modifications".
</p><p>
Installers of "applications" should be limited to writing to the application's subtrees in Program Files, Documents and Settings, and the Registry.  Uninstalling an application consists of removing those subtrees.  Applications cannot install anything that runs at startup or runs periodically.  Most programs (especially games and entertainment apps) should be applications.  Under these restrictions, installation of applications is relatively safe, and should be allowed with Power User privileges.
</p><p>
"Plugins" are sub-applications which affect one application.  They go in their own subtree under the appropriate application.  The application controls their installation, and they can't do anything the application can't do.
Browser plug-ins fall in this category if the browser is an "application".  If the browser is "middleware" (IE is, but Firefox is not), more privileges are required.
</p><p>
"Middleware" is programs run by other programs, like Java.  Changing middleware can affect multiple applications, so that requires more privileges.  Code signing is appropriate.
</p><p>"System modifications", which modify the OS itself and may require a reboot, should require both code signing by a clearly identified party and administrator privileges to install.
</p><p>
Of course, if we had something like that, app developers would bitch that they couldn't load their "phone home for update" service or "prelauncher".  Tough. You don't really need to know if ZowieApp needs an update until you run ZowieApp again.  And if your app needs to be "prelaunched" because it loads slowly, maybe the problem is that it loads slowly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the Registry is a good concept .
The Registry is just a file system for little data items .
The trouble is that any application can write to any part of it .
It lacks a security model .
( Yes , you can attach security restrictions to registry keys , but nobody does this , because Windows 95 did n't have that , [ microsoft.com ] and applications did n't have support for it .
) The big problem with Windows security is Microsoft never put a security model in place under the concept of program installation .
The way this ought to work is that there should be several classes of things one can install .
Call them " applications " , " plugins " , " middleware " , and " system modifications " .
Installers of " applications " should be limited to writing to the application 's subtrees in Program Files , Documents and Settings , and the Registry .
Uninstalling an application consists of removing those subtrees .
Applications can not install anything that runs at startup or runs periodically .
Most programs ( especially games and entertainment apps ) should be applications .
Under these restrictions , installation of applications is relatively safe , and should be allowed with Power User privileges .
" Plugins " are sub-applications which affect one application .
They go in their own subtree under the appropriate application .
The application controls their installation , and they ca n't do anything the application ca n't do .
Browser plug-ins fall in this category if the browser is an " application " .
If the browser is " middleware " ( IE is , but Firefox is not ) , more privileges are required .
" Middleware " is programs run by other programs , like Java .
Changing middleware can affect multiple applications , so that requires more privileges .
Code signing is appropriate .
" System modifications " , which modify the OS itself and may require a reboot , should require both code signing by a clearly identified party and administrator privileges to install .
Of course , if we had something like that , app developers would bitch that they could n't load their " phone home for update " service or " prelauncher " .
Tough. You do n't really need to know if ZowieApp needs an update until you run ZowieApp again .
And if your app needs to be " prelaunched " because it loads slowly , maybe the problem is that it loads slowly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Actually, the Registry is a good concept.
The Registry is just a file system for little data items.
The trouble is that any application can write to any part of it.
It lacks a security model.
(Yes, you can attach security restrictions to registry keys, but nobody does this, because Windows 95 didn't have that, [microsoft.com] and applications didn't have support for it.
)

The big problem with Windows security is Microsoft never put a security model in place under the concept of program installation.
The way this ought to work is that there should be several classes of things one can install.
Call them "applications", "plugins", "middleware", and "system modifications".
Installers of "applications" should be limited to writing to the application's subtrees in Program Files, Documents and Settings, and the Registry.
Uninstalling an application consists of removing those subtrees.
Applications cannot install anything that runs at startup or runs periodically.
Most programs (especially games and entertainment apps) should be applications.
Under these restrictions, installation of applications is relatively safe, and should be allowed with Power User privileges.
"Plugins" are sub-applications which affect one application.
They go in their own subtree under the appropriate application.
The application controls their installation, and they can't do anything the application can't do.
Browser plug-ins fall in this category if the browser is an "application".
If the browser is "middleware" (IE is, but Firefox is not), more privileges are required.
"Middleware" is programs run by other programs, like Java.
Changing middleware can affect multiple applications, so that requires more privileges.
Code signing is appropriate.
"System modifications", which modify the OS itself and may require a reboot, should require both code signing by a clearly identified party and administrator privileges to install.
Of course, if we had something like that, app developers would bitch that they couldn't load their "phone home for update" service or "prelauncher".
Tough. You don't really need to know if ZowieApp needs an update until you run ZowieApp again.
And if your app needs to be "prelaunched" because it loads slowly, maybe the problem is that it loads slowly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299468</id>
	<title>Re:Malware, still?</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1259606580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.</p></div><p>But, a lot of the time you do need administrator rights to do simple things. If all you do is use mspaint, then you may be Ok, but if you want to do any real work, you're stuck with logging in as administrator, or the programs won't run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.But , a lot of the time you do need administrator rights to do simple things .
If all you do is use mspaint , then you may be Ok , but if you want to do any real work , you 're stuck with logging in as administrator , or the programs wo n't run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.But, a lot of the time you do need administrator rights to do simple things.
If all you do is use mspaint, then you may be Ok, but if you want to do any real work, you're stuck with logging in as administrator, or the programs won't run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299390</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is George W Bush's fault!</p><p>Well, that seems to be the cause of all Obama's problems, so why can't Microsoft use it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is George W Bush 's fault ! Well , that seems to be the cause of all Obama 's problems , so why ca n't Microsoft use it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is George W Bush's fault!Well, that seems to be the cause of all Obama's problems, so why can't Microsoft use it too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299368</id>
	<title>Please note - the Previx's apology is accompanied</title>
	<author>Phizzle</author>
	<datestamp>1259606160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>by loud sucking sounds.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>by loud sucking sounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by loud sucking sounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299920</id>
	<title>This is one of the few times you are likely to see</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1259608440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...microsoft admit that all their OSes are STILL extremely vulnerable to malware that can easily shut down the machine.</p><p>I'd much rather it was an update, this does not fill me with confidence and pride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...microsoft admit that all their OSes are STILL extremely vulnerable to malware that can easily shut down the machine.I 'd much rather it was an update , this does not fill me with confidence and pride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...microsoft admit that all their OSes are STILL extremely vulnerable to malware that can easily shut down the machine.I'd much rather it was an update, this does not fill me with confidence and pride.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306938</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is bullshit excusifying for Microsoft. I'm running an iPhone for 2.5 years, always-on, always-connected, running Web and native apps and no malware. Mac OS X for 10 years including the beta, and at no time has an app installed itself and done things in the background. People are having their banks emptied by their Windows PC's as they attempt tondo online banking. Why is a fucking $189 iPod secure for banking and a Windows PC not?</p><p>The issue is not apps you run yourself, it's that apps can install and run themselves. There is no excuse for the lack of basic Unix security in Windows anymore. It's sold to users as being Internet-ready, users who don't know what software is in many cases, let alone malware.</p><p>The only thing worse than Microsoft's lack of quality is the idiots like you who make excuses for them. Get a fucking clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is bullshit excusifying for Microsoft .
I 'm running an iPhone for 2.5 years , always-on , always-connected , running Web and native apps and no malware .
Mac OS X for 10 years including the beta , and at no time has an app installed itself and done things in the background .
People are having their banks emptied by their Windows PC 's as they attempt tondo online banking .
Why is a fucking $ 189 iPod secure for banking and a Windows PC not ? The issue is not apps you run yourself , it 's that apps can install and run themselves .
There is no excuse for the lack of basic Unix security in Windows anymore .
It 's sold to users as being Internet-ready , users who do n't know what software is in many cases , let alone malware.The only thing worse than Microsoft 's lack of quality is the idiots like you who make excuses for them .
Get a fucking clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is bullshit excusifying for Microsoft.
I'm running an iPhone for 2.5 years, always-on, always-connected, running Web and native apps and no malware.
Mac OS X for 10 years including the beta, and at no time has an app installed itself and done things in the background.
People are having their banks emptied by their Windows PC's as they attempt tondo online banking.
Why is a fucking $189 iPod secure for banking and a Windows PC not?The issue is not apps you run yourself, it's that apps can install and run themselves.
There is no excuse for the lack of basic Unix security in Windows anymore.
It's sold to users as being Internet-ready, users who don't know what software is in many cases, let alone malware.The only thing worse than Microsoft's lack of quality is the idiots like you who make excuses for them.
Get a fucking clue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299688</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>CoJoNEs</author>
	<datestamp>1259607420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to rain on your hate parade, but in addition to the comments about the CONF files, the registry also makes Windows much easier to manage on an enterprise scale.</p><p>I can create an application, put its settings in the registry, and boom -- I can manage it through an MMC for thousands of computers with only the creation of a policy template to change settings.</p><p>The misunderstanding of the registry's use is always what people hated about it, sadly.</p></div><p>Because its nearly impossible to edit a file remotely through scripting.  Right..</p><p>Besides if Microsoft went this route they would modify the interface so you could still use policys to edit it just as you always did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to rain on your hate parade , but in addition to the comments about the CONF files , the registry also makes Windows much easier to manage on an enterprise scale.I can create an application , put its settings in the registry , and boom -- I can manage it through an MMC for thousands of computers with only the creation of a policy template to change settings.The misunderstanding of the registry 's use is always what people hated about it , sadly.Because its nearly impossible to edit a file remotely through scripting .
Right..Besides if Microsoft went this route they would modify the interface so you could still use policys to edit it just as you always did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to rain on your hate parade, but in addition to the comments about the CONF files, the registry also makes Windows much easier to manage on an enterprise scale.I can create an application, put its settings in the registry, and boom -- I can manage it through an MMC for thousands of computers with only the creation of a policy template to change settings.The misunderstanding of the registry's use is always what people hated about it, sadly.Because its nearly impossible to edit a file remotely through scripting.
Right..Besides if Microsoft went this route they would modify the interface so you could still use policys to edit it just as you always did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30328702</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1259920380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does mocking Windows make you anti-malware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does mocking Windows make you anti-malware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does mocking Windows make you anti-malware?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299556</id>
	<title>"And I'm A PC" - Windows 7, 2009</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1259606940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the malware would have a harder time getting into the system if m$ didn't load a pile of crap in along with the product they just sold?  It takes me a couple of daze to clear the unwanted garbage that comes with any m$ product.  Not m$'s fault? When I sell a house, as part of the "deal" I don't leave the contents of a Stadium Dumpster in my clients new front yard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the malware would have a harder time getting into the system if m $ did n't load a pile of crap in along with the product they just sold ?
It takes me a couple of daze to clear the unwanted garbage that comes with any m $ product .
Not m $ 's fault ?
When I sell a house , as part of the " deal " I do n't leave the contents of a Stadium Dumpster in my clients new front yard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the malware would have a harder time getting into the system if m$ didn't load a pile of crap in along with the product they just sold?
It takes me a couple of daze to clear the unwanted garbage that comes with any m$ product.
Not m$'s fault?
When I sell a house, as part of the "deal" I don't leave the contents of a Stadium Dumpster in my clients new front yard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906</id>
	<title>Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1259604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Windows 7 is much more susceptible to malware than previously claimed? This is the big win for Microsoft? Sorry, but if that large enough of a percentage of folks are experiencing the problem, then it's a real issue that MS needs to address. It sounds like they are just saying "not my problem", and forgetting about it. Meantime Windows 7 will be completely destroyed by the time it gets decent marketshare.</p><p>Maybe MS turned their attention to Windows 8 a little sooner than claimed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Windows 7 is much more susceptible to malware than previously claimed ?
This is the big win for Microsoft ?
Sorry , but if that large enough of a percentage of folks are experiencing the problem , then it 's a real issue that MS needs to address .
It sounds like they are just saying " not my problem " , and forgetting about it .
Meantime Windows 7 will be completely destroyed by the time it gets decent marketshare.Maybe MS turned their attention to Windows 8 a little sooner than claimed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Windows 7 is much more susceptible to malware than previously claimed?
This is the big win for Microsoft?
Sorry, but if that large enough of a percentage of folks are experiencing the problem, then it's a real issue that MS needs to address.
It sounds like they are just saying "not my problem", and forgetting about it.
Meantime Windows 7 will be completely destroyed by the time it gets decent marketshare.Maybe MS turned their attention to Windows 8 a little sooner than claimed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299110</id>
	<title>Breaking News</title>
	<author>sajuuk</author>
	<datestamp>1259605020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft denies that Windows is breaking computers.

Details at 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft denies that Windows is breaking computers .
Details at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft denies that Windows is breaking computers.
Details at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300798</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259612760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Malware is what users explicitly run</i></p><p>No, <b>trojans</b> are what users explicitly run. Windows has had (and apears to have again) bugs that allow an attacker in despite the fact that no user has to explicitly run -- like a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer\_worm" title="wikipedia.org">worm</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><blockquote><div><p>The Nachi family of worms, for example, tried to download and install patches from Microsoft's website to fix vulnerabilities in the host system - by exploiting those same vulnerabilities. In practice, although this may have made these systems more secure, it generated considerable network traffic, rebooted the machine in the course of patching it, and did its work without the consent of the computer's owner or user.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Malware is what users explicitly runNo , trojans are what users explicitly run .
Windows has had ( and apears to have again ) bugs that allow an attacker in despite the fact that no user has to explicitly run -- like a worm [ wikipedia.org ] .The Nachi family of worms , for example , tried to download and install patches from Microsoft 's website to fix vulnerabilities in the host system - by exploiting those same vulnerabilities .
In practice , although this may have made these systems more secure , it generated considerable network traffic , rebooted the machine in the course of patching it , and did its work without the consent of the computer 's owner or user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malware is what users explicitly runNo, trojans are what users explicitly run.
Windows has had (and apears to have again) bugs that allow an attacker in despite the fact that no user has to explicitly run -- like a worm [wikipedia.org].The Nachi family of worms, for example, tried to download and install patches from Microsoft's website to fix vulnerabilities in the host system - by exploiting those same vulnerabilities.
In practice, although this may have made these systems more secure, it generated considerable network traffic, rebooted the machine in the course of patching it, and did its work without the consent of the computer's owner or user.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299622</id>
	<title>Sure it does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any OS is susceptible to malware. Malware is what users explicitly run, and then it does bad things to their system. You can't secure against that</i></p><p>Actually you can, to some extent.  Anything the user runs on OS X for the first time after download issues a warning, and then you need an administrator password beyond that to modify the kinds of system level files we are talking about here.</p><p>The base issue is that in Windows 7 Microsoft weakened UAC, so even if you have it disabled a program can do some system level things without warning if you are logged in as administrator.  Why should Microsoft get a pass for doing this?  Sudo doesn't have these kinds of holes built in...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any OS is susceptible to malware .
Malware is what users explicitly run , and then it does bad things to their system .
You ca n't secure against thatActually you can , to some extent .
Anything the user runs on OS X for the first time after download issues a warning , and then you need an administrator password beyond that to modify the kinds of system level files we are talking about here.The base issue is that in Windows 7 Microsoft weakened UAC , so even if you have it disabled a program can do some system level things without warning if you are logged in as administrator .
Why should Microsoft get a pass for doing this ?
Sudo does n't have these kinds of holes built in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any OS is susceptible to malware.
Malware is what users explicitly run, and then it does bad things to their system.
You can't secure against thatActually you can, to some extent.
Anything the user runs on OS X for the first time after download issues a warning, and then you need an administrator password beyond that to modify the kinds of system level files we are talking about here.The base issue is that in Windows 7 Microsoft weakened UAC, so even if you have it disabled a program can do some system level things without warning if you are logged in as administrator.
Why should Microsoft get a pass for doing this?
Sudo doesn't have these kinds of holes built in...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299336</id>
	<title>Worst.  Summary.  Ever.</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1259605920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, sadly that's not true.  But this headline and summary suck.</p><p>1) How is vulnerabiilty to malware not MS's fault?</p><p>2) The summary organizes the facts in such a way to read as though this were just MS denying blame and vaguely saying "malware did it"; read the links (especially the last one) and you'll see a different picture.</p><p>3) In its continued zeal to paint MS and anyone agreeing with MS in a negative light, the summary insults the blogger for appologizing <i>after he had posted technical information he later found to be false, which incorrectly blamed specific MS actions that were not in fact at fault</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , sadly that 's not true .
But this headline and summary suck.1 ) How is vulnerabiilty to malware not MS 's fault ? 2 ) The summary organizes the facts in such a way to read as though this were just MS denying blame and vaguely saying " malware did it " ; read the links ( especially the last one ) and you 'll see a different picture.3 ) In its continued zeal to paint MS and anyone agreeing with MS in a negative light , the summary insults the blogger for appologizing after he had posted technical information he later found to be false , which incorrectly blamed specific MS actions that were not in fact at fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, sadly that's not true.
But this headline and summary suck.1) How is vulnerabiilty to malware not MS's fault?2) The summary organizes the facts in such a way to read as though this were just MS denying blame and vaguely saying "malware did it"; read the links (especially the last one) and you'll see a different picture.3) In its continued zeal to paint MS and anyone agreeing with MS in a negative light, the summary insults the blogger for appologizing after he had posted technical information he later found to be false, which incorrectly blamed specific MS actions that were not in fact at fault.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298978</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes. I agree. Microsoft Windows should be 100\% secure from malware. Not like it is ever the user's fault or anything...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I agree .
Microsoft Windows should be 100 \ % secure from malware .
Not like it is ever the user 's fault or anything.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I agree.
Microsoft Windows should be 100\% secure from malware.
Not like it is ever the user's fault or anything...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299734</id>
	<title>...but we here at /.</title>
	<author>Slash.Poop</author>
	<datestamp>1259607660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>don't believe anything M$ says.</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't believe anything M $ says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't believe anything M$ says.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299970</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1259608800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your right.  Throwing all your eggs into one basket is by far the best way to do anything!</p><p>I guess you've never heard of configuration management systems.  Or ever thought of using LDAP for application configurations rather than a registry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your right .
Throwing all your eggs into one basket is by far the best way to do anything ! I guess you 've never heard of configuration management systems .
Or ever thought of using LDAP for application configurations rather than a registry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your right.
Throwing all your eggs into one basket is by far the best way to do anything!I guess you've never heard of configuration management systems.
Or ever thought of using LDAP for application configurations rather than a registry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30302526</id>
	<title>Prevx apologized</title>
	<author>relaxinparadise</author>
	<datestamp>1259575560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>at least they said they were sorry, better than most</htmltext>
<tokenext>at least they said they were sorry , better than most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at least they said they were sorry, better than most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301258</id>
	<title>Re:As if that makes it any better.....</title>
	<author>toadlife</author>
	<datestamp>1259614680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to explain how is Windows "inordinately susceptible to malware" compared to other operating sytems with similar feature sets such as OSX and K/Ubuntu?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to explain how is Windows " inordinately susceptible to malware " compared to other operating sytems with similar feature sets such as OSX and K/Ubuntu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to explain how is Windows "inordinately susceptible to malware" compared to other operating sytems with similar feature sets such as OSX and K/Ubuntu?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299526</id>
	<title>this still doesn't say how to fix it!</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1259606820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's awfully hard to install anti-malware software to fix it if you get nothing but a black screen.  I sure hope it doesn't do this in safe mode and that my antimalware software can install in safe more and that my definitions files have added this malware that may be like 2 weeks old or something.  One of my customers is coming over today with a black screened laptop.  How am I supposed to fix it?  It sounds like they haven't even decided on the cause yet!!!  Maybe it's malware, maybe it's a registry entry, maybe it's windows, who knows!  In fact, if you actually read the article, they say this problem <b>However, we do know that "black screen" behavior is associated with some malware families such as Daonol.A</b>  So in other words, MAYBE that's the problem. <b>MAYBE!</b>  And since it's MS saying it, probably not.  I don't think everyone with this problem suddenly all caught the same virus that I've never heard of before.  Googling the issue comes up with fixes that people say don't work and useless speculation.  Does anyone have an actual fix for this that <b>actually works?</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's awfully hard to install anti-malware software to fix it if you get nothing but a black screen .
I sure hope it does n't do this in safe mode and that my antimalware software can install in safe more and that my definitions files have added this malware that may be like 2 weeks old or something .
One of my customers is coming over today with a black screened laptop .
How am I supposed to fix it ?
It sounds like they have n't even decided on the cause yet ! ! !
Maybe it 's malware , maybe it 's a registry entry , maybe it 's windows , who knows !
In fact , if you actually read the article , they say this problem However , we do know that " black screen " behavior is associated with some malware families such as Daonol.A So in other words , MAYBE that 's the problem .
MAYBE ! And since it 's MS saying it , probably not .
I do n't think everyone with this problem suddenly all caught the same virus that I 've never heard of before .
Googling the issue comes up with fixes that people say do n't work and useless speculation .
Does anyone have an actual fix for this that actually works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's awfully hard to install anti-malware software to fix it if you get nothing but a black screen.
I sure hope it doesn't do this in safe mode and that my antimalware software can install in safe more and that my definitions files have added this malware that may be like 2 weeks old or something.
One of my customers is coming over today with a black screened laptop.
How am I supposed to fix it?
It sounds like they haven't even decided on the cause yet!!!
Maybe it's malware, maybe it's a registry entry, maybe it's windows, who knows!
In fact, if you actually read the article, they say this problem However, we do know that "black screen" behavior is associated with some malware families such as Daonol.A  So in other words, MAYBE that's the problem.
MAYBE!  And since it's MS saying it, probably not.
I don't think everyone with this problem suddenly all caught the same virus that I've never heard of before.
Googling the issue comes up with fixes that people say don't work and useless speculation.
Does anyone have an actual fix for this that actually works?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30307952</id>
	<title>Re:Not our fault</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1259608980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft claimed that IE 8 was the most secure browser on the planet, and that Windows 7 was the most secure OS ever.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Microsoft is smarter then that.<br> <br>

They use marketing phrases like "IE8: the most secure" and "Windows7: the most secure version of Windows Yet". This way they avoid committing to a statement (fraud, deceptive advertising) but still give people the impression of what you said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft claimed that IE 8 was the most secure browser on the planet , and that Windows 7 was the most secure OS ever .
Microsoft is smarter then that .
They use marketing phrases like " IE8 : the most secure " and " Windows7 : the most secure version of Windows Yet " .
This way they avoid committing to a statement ( fraud , deceptive advertising ) but still give people the impression of what you said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft claimed that IE 8 was the most secure browser on the planet, and that Windows 7 was the most secure OS ever.
Microsoft is smarter then that.
They use marketing phrases like "IE8: the most secure" and "Windows7: the most secure version of Windows Yet".
This way they avoid committing to a statement (fraud, deceptive advertising) but still give people the impression of what you said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299692</id>
	<title>Crock of shit</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1259607480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After after downloading microsofts update I had to do a system restore to get my computer to boot. Over the years of using windows the single program operation that ive found most risky to use is windows update...</htmltext>
<tokenext>After after downloading microsofts update I had to do a system restore to get my computer to boot .
Over the years of using windows the single program operation that ive found most risky to use is windows update.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After after downloading microsofts update I had to do a system restore to get my computer to boot.
Over the years of using windows the single program operation that ive found most risky to use is windows update...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30385752</id>
	<title>Windows Black Screen Prevention Solutions</title>
	<author>Dr3w$k!</author>
	<datestamp>1260435840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After having done some testing, and having other esteemed professionals verify the test results, we've come up with two methods to PREVENT this malware induced issue from occurring:  Solution 1: <a href="http://www.apple.com/mac/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.apple.com/mac/</a> [apple.com]<br>Solution 2: <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/" title="ubuntu.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ubuntu.com/</a> [ubuntu.com]</p><p>
&nbsp; * Please be aware these solutions have not yet been approved by Microsoft. Use at your own risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After having done some testing , and having other esteemed professionals verify the test results , we 've come up with two methods to PREVENT this malware induced issue from occurring : Solution 1 : http : //www.apple.com/mac/ [ apple.com ] Solution 2 : http : //www.ubuntu.com/ [ ubuntu.com ]   * Please be aware these solutions have not yet been approved by Microsoft .
Use at your own risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After having done some testing, and having other esteemed professionals verify the test results, we've come up with two methods to PREVENT this malware induced issue from occurring:  Solution 1: http://www.apple.com/mac/ [apple.com]Solution 2: http://www.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com]
  * Please be aware these solutions have not yet been approved by Microsoft.
Use at your own risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300712</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1259612340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any OS is susceptible to malware</i></p><p>Yes, but the question is "by default"?</p><p>Take the default OS for the iPhone. It is basically impossible to get malware on there.</p><p>A jailbroken iPhone on the other hand... Well... Thats not Apple's fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any OS is susceptible to malwareYes , but the question is " by default " ? Take the default OS for the iPhone .
It is basically impossible to get malware on there.A jailbroken iPhone on the other hand... Well... Thats not Apple 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any OS is susceptible to malwareYes, but the question is "by default"?Take the default OS for the iPhone.
It is basically impossible to get malware on there.A jailbroken iPhone on the other hand... Well... Thats not Apple's fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30304364</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1259581560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any OS is susceptible to malware.</p></div><p>True.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Malware is what users explicitly run, and then it does bad things to their system.</p> </div><p>You're thinking of a trojan. Malware is simply short for malicious software, which includes trojans, but also worms, viruses, and others.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't secure against that, and no OS on the market today does that.</p></div><p>The iPhone and SELinux both seem to contradict your assertion.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> You can pop up tons of prompts...</p></div><p>Why do users who seem focused entirely on Windows seem to think MORE prompts would make an OS more secure?</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but then it's the "dancing bunnies" problem</p></div><p>When I want to run Windows software I don't trust, I install it in a clean Windows VM by itself and roll back any changes to the VM after each time I use it. Are you telling me it is impossible to automate that level of sandboxing?</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... the user can be convinced to click "Yes" on each and every prompt.</p></div><p>If you're giving people prompts that have a "Yes" button you've already failed and need to hire some usability experts with security backgrounds and then listen to them. All buttons should be verbs that describe a unique action. Otherwise the more prompts you have the more you condition users to a single response without reading. It's  lot harder to convince a user to click the "Let this program from an unknown source have complete control of my computer forever", especially when that is the last option, they've never seen that before, and one of the other options is "Run this, but don't let it access my files" that safely runs the application in a sandbox or clean VM and hands it dummy resources when asked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any OS is susceptible to malware.True.Malware is what users explicitly run , and then it does bad things to their system .
You 're thinking of a trojan .
Malware is simply short for malicious software , which includes trojans , but also worms , viruses , and others.You ca n't secure against that , and no OS on the market today does that.The iPhone and SELinux both seem to contradict your assertion .
You can pop up tons of prompts...Why do users who seem focused entirely on Windows seem to think MORE prompts would make an OS more secure ?
...but then it 's the " dancing bunnies " problemWhen I want to run Windows software I do n't trust , I install it in a clean Windows VM by itself and roll back any changes to the VM after each time I use it .
Are you telling me it is impossible to automate that level of sandboxing ?
... the user can be convinced to click " Yes " on each and every prompt.If you 're giving people prompts that have a " Yes " button you 've already failed and need to hire some usability experts with security backgrounds and then listen to them .
All buttons should be verbs that describe a unique action .
Otherwise the more prompts you have the more you condition users to a single response without reading .
It 's lot harder to convince a user to click the " Let this program from an unknown source have complete control of my computer forever " , especially when that is the last option , they 've never seen that before , and one of the other options is " Run this , but do n't let it access my files " that safely runs the application in a sandbox or clean VM and hands it dummy resources when asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any OS is susceptible to malware.True.Malware is what users explicitly run, and then it does bad things to their system.
You're thinking of a trojan.
Malware is simply short for malicious software, which includes trojans, but also worms, viruses, and others.You can't secure against that, and no OS on the market today does that.The iPhone and SELinux both seem to contradict your assertion.
You can pop up tons of prompts...Why do users who seem focused entirely on Windows seem to think MORE prompts would make an OS more secure?
...but then it's the "dancing bunnies" problemWhen I want to run Windows software I don't trust, I install it in a clean Windows VM by itself and roll back any changes to the VM after each time I use it.
Are you telling me it is impossible to automate that level of sandboxing?
... the user can be convinced to click "Yes" on each and every prompt.If you're giving people prompts that have a "Yes" button you've already failed and need to hire some usability experts with security backgrounds and then listen to them.
All buttons should be verbs that describe a unique action.
Otherwise the more prompts you have the more you condition users to a single response without reading.
It's  lot harder to convince a user to click the "Let this program from an unknown source have complete control of my computer forever", especially when that is the last option, they've never seen that before, and one of the other options is "Run this, but don't let it access my files" that safely runs the application in a sandbox or clean VM and hands it dummy resources when asked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299566</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair to Obama, George W. Bush was a really horrible president.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair to Obama , George W. Bush was a really horrible president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair to Obama, George W. Bush was a really horrible president.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300148</id>
	<title>So Windows in Utopia land works with normal user?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259609700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Installers, Games, Utility programs, Firmware updaters and even the Windows update itself.</p><p>Don't blame those users, blame the OS vendor for stealing everything from Apple but not stealing "Enter your administrator password to continue".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Installers , Games , Utility programs , Firmware updaters and even the Windows update itself.Do n't blame those users , blame the OS vendor for stealing everything from Apple but not stealing " Enter your administrator password to continue " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Installers, Games, Utility programs, Firmware updaters and even the Windows update itself.Don't blame those users, blame the OS vendor for stealing everything from Apple but not stealing "Enter your administrator password to continue".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30304980</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1259583780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the Registry API allows for non-null terminated strings. Explorer uses the registry. Explorer doesn't check for non-null terminated strings and causes black-screen of death. Seems to be a problem with Explorer to me. And the registry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the Registry API allows for non-null terminated strings .
Explorer uses the registry .
Explorer does n't check for non-null terminated strings and causes black-screen of death .
Seems to be a problem with Explorer to me .
And the registry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the Registry API allows for non-null terminated strings.
Explorer uses the registry.
Explorer doesn't check for non-null terminated strings and causes black-screen of death.
Seems to be a problem with Explorer to me.
And the registry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300848</id>
	<title>Sounds more like DLL Hell</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1259613000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone installs software into the OS that links itself to the kernel.  That software uses an outdated DLL of some variety or another.  MS Windows Update comes in and updates this outdated DLL and kills software that was linked to the kernel.</p><p>Does that not sound familiar to anyone?</p><p>I'm not saying Microsoft shouldn't be able to update things.  I am saying 3rd parties shouldn't be allowed to attach things to the kernel as that tends to result in an unstable system.  All things that need to link to the kernel should be required to go through Microsoft for inclusion and/or approval.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone installs software into the OS that links itself to the kernel .
That software uses an outdated DLL of some variety or another .
MS Windows Update comes in and updates this outdated DLL and kills software that was linked to the kernel.Does that not sound familiar to anyone ? I 'm not saying Microsoft should n't be able to update things .
I am saying 3rd parties should n't be allowed to attach things to the kernel as that tends to result in an unstable system .
All things that need to link to the kernel should be required to go through Microsoft for inclusion and/or approval .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone installs software into the OS that links itself to the kernel.
That software uses an outdated DLL of some variety or another.
MS Windows Update comes in and updates this outdated DLL and kills software that was linked to the kernel.Does that not sound familiar to anyone?I'm not saying Microsoft shouldn't be able to update things.
I am saying 3rd parties shouldn't be allowed to attach things to the kernel as that tends to result in an unstable system.
All things that need to link to the kernel should be required to go through Microsoft for inclusion and/or approval.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301538</id>
	<title>Re:As if that makes it any better.....</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259572560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ford successfully uses it every time one of their products runs over a pedestrian.  The steering wheel does exactly what it says.  Turn the wheel left, the car moves to the left.  Turn the wheel right, the car moves to the right.  Unless you can prove that the steering wheel did something that the user did not ask it to do, and that the problem was a design defect, Ford can express their sympathies to the bereaved family in a totally non-liable way.  Meanwhile, guilt is worked out between the pedestrian and the driver of the vehicle, usually with a strong bias toward the driver.</p><p>Windows, starting with Vista, does exactly what it says in the UAC warning popup.  Click "Yes, please install fluffybunnies.exe", it installs fluffybunnies.exe.  If fluffybunnies then moves on to get access to a protected driver, UAC asks again.  And if you click "yes" again, it'll do precisely what you are telling it to do.  The operating system has no way of knowing that messing with the core system registry is a bad thing under specific circumstances.  If you've answered "yes, this software should have access to the core system registry." the OS has to assume that it's OK, because you've told it to.  After all, you could be installing a system tool or an antivirus scanner, which can be as invasive as the worst malware but the invasion is generally beneficial rather than harmful.  If your Antivirus scanner doesn't recognize the malware, Windows certainly can't.</p><p>Plus, I've never heard of anyone who has come down with asbestosis, black lung, severed digits, cancer, or death due to negative impact on a computer system caused by malware.  If you've got a decent backup regimen, at worst they'd owe you a reinstall which you can already do with your recovery disk. It'd hardly be worth a court case, and would be handled under small claims court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ford successfully uses it every time one of their products runs over a pedestrian .
The steering wheel does exactly what it says .
Turn the wheel left , the car moves to the left .
Turn the wheel right , the car moves to the right .
Unless you can prove that the steering wheel did something that the user did not ask it to do , and that the problem was a design defect , Ford can express their sympathies to the bereaved family in a totally non-liable way .
Meanwhile , guilt is worked out between the pedestrian and the driver of the vehicle , usually with a strong bias toward the driver.Windows , starting with Vista , does exactly what it says in the UAC warning popup .
Click " Yes , please install fluffybunnies.exe " , it installs fluffybunnies.exe .
If fluffybunnies then moves on to get access to a protected driver , UAC asks again .
And if you click " yes " again , it 'll do precisely what you are telling it to do .
The operating system has no way of knowing that messing with the core system registry is a bad thing under specific circumstances .
If you 've answered " yes , this software should have access to the core system registry .
" the OS has to assume that it 's OK , because you 've told it to .
After all , you could be installing a system tool or an antivirus scanner , which can be as invasive as the worst malware but the invasion is generally beneficial rather than harmful .
If your Antivirus scanner does n't recognize the malware , Windows certainly ca n't.Plus , I 've never heard of anyone who has come down with asbestosis , black lung , severed digits , cancer , or death due to negative impact on a computer system caused by malware .
If you 've got a decent backup regimen , at worst they 'd owe you a reinstall which you can already do with your recovery disk .
It 'd hardly be worth a court case , and would be handled under small claims court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ford successfully uses it every time one of their products runs over a pedestrian.
The steering wheel does exactly what it says.
Turn the wheel left, the car moves to the left.
Turn the wheel right, the car moves to the right.
Unless you can prove that the steering wheel did something that the user did not ask it to do, and that the problem was a design defect, Ford can express their sympathies to the bereaved family in a totally non-liable way.
Meanwhile, guilt is worked out between the pedestrian and the driver of the vehicle, usually with a strong bias toward the driver.Windows, starting with Vista, does exactly what it says in the UAC warning popup.
Click "Yes, please install fluffybunnies.exe", it installs fluffybunnies.exe.
If fluffybunnies then moves on to get access to a protected driver, UAC asks again.
And if you click "yes" again, it'll do precisely what you are telling it to do.
The operating system has no way of knowing that messing with the core system registry is a bad thing under specific circumstances.
If you've answered "yes, this software should have access to the core system registry.
" the OS has to assume that it's OK, because you've told it to.
After all, you could be installing a system tool or an antivirus scanner, which can be as invasive as the worst malware but the invasion is generally beneficial rather than harmful.
If your Antivirus scanner doesn't recognize the malware, Windows certainly can't.Plus, I've never heard of anyone who has come down with asbestosis, black lung, severed digits, cancer, or death due to negative impact on a computer system caused by malware.
If you've got a decent backup regimen, at worst they'd owe you a reinstall which you can already do with your recovery disk.
It'd hardly be worth a court case, and would be handled under small claims court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299306</id>
	<title>Re:Fault</title>
	<author>xxuserxx</author>
	<datestamp>1259605740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is not Microsoft the problem is the user base.  The average Linux, Unix user is willing to learn complex text commands and actually learn how to use a computer.  The average windows user just wants to click some icons and magicly make it work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not Microsoft the problem is the user base .
The average Linux , Unix user is willing to learn complex text commands and actually learn how to use a computer .
The average windows user just wants to click some icons and magicly make it work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not Microsoft the problem is the user base.
The average Linux, Unix user is willing to learn complex text commands and actually learn how to use a computer.
The average windows user just wants to click some icons and magicly make it work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299332</id>
	<title>it's OK, Don't Worry</title>
	<author>Storchei</author>
	<datestamp>1259605920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, young fellow! Don't worry about Windows 7 problems! M$ is now working on Windows 8 to solve older Windows problems. Just wait for Windows 8! =P<br>
<br>
Despite the serious failures Windows has, it's a bit naive to believe ALL malware would be neutralized on Windows 7 (or any other OS, to be fair), considering ALL previous Windows releases. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, this kind of problems (black/blue screens, and stuff) have always been characteristic of Windows. If you don't like it use another OS, or stop complaining about this on each Windows release.<br>
<br>
In summary, this problem is more of the same..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , young fellow !
Do n't worry about Windows 7 problems !
M $ is now working on Windows 8 to solve older Windows problems .
Just wait for Windows 8 !
= P Despite the serious failures Windows has , it 's a bit naive to believe ALL malware would be neutralized on Windows 7 ( or any other OS , to be fair ) , considering ALL previous Windows releases .
On the other hand , this kind of problems ( black/blue screens , and stuff ) have always been characteristic of Windows .
If you do n't like it use another OS , or stop complaining about this on each Windows release .
In summary , this problem is more of the same. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, young fellow!
Don't worry about Windows 7 problems!
M$ is now working on Windows 8 to solve older Windows problems.
Just wait for Windows 8!
=P

Despite the serious failures Windows has, it's a bit naive to believe ALL malware would be neutralized on Windows 7 (or any other OS, to be fair), considering ALL previous Windows releases.
On the other hand, this kind of problems (black/blue screens, and stuff) have always been characteristic of Windows.
If you don't like it use another OS, or stop complaining about this on each Windows release.
In summary, this problem is more of the same..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299500</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1259606700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I was more clever, I would be making a joke about Degrees and Radians right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was more clever , I would be making a joke about Degrees and Radians right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was more clever, I would be making a joke about Degrees and Radians right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299798</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>avatar4d</author>
	<datestamp>1259607960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been more of the "bane of Windows" in the respect to manageability within the system. Outside of malware and the like, what do you think causes Windows to slowdown over time?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been more of the " bane of Windows " in the respect to manageability within the system .
Outside of malware and the like , what do you think causes Windows to slowdown over time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been more of the "bane of Windows" in the respect to manageability within the system.
Outside of malware and the like, what do you think causes Windows to slowdown over time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306660</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry - how it ought to work</title>
	<author>Johnno74</author>
	<datestamp>1259594100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, the Registry is a good concept. The Registry is just a file system for little data items. The trouble is that any application can write to any part of it. It lacks a security model. (Yes, you can attach security restrictions to registry keys, but nobody does this, <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986" title="microsoft.com">because Windows 95 didn't have that,</a> [microsoft.com] and applications didn't have support for it.)</p><p>Um, 100\% wrong dude.  The Registry uses ACLs, just like the file system.  Infact if you edit the registry permissions its the exact same control that you use to edit filesystem ACLs.<br>And as for "nobody does this"... Try logging onto windows as a non-administrator and editing anything in HKLM.  you can't.</p><p>The "real" problem is that outside of a large company, all desktop users are administrators.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the Registry is a good concept .
The Registry is just a file system for little data items .
The trouble is that any application can write to any part of it .
It lacks a security model .
( Yes , you can attach security restrictions to registry keys , but nobody does this , because Windows 95 did n't have that , [ microsoft.com ] and applications did n't have support for it .
) Um , 100 \ % wrong dude .
The Registry uses ACLs , just like the file system .
Infact if you edit the registry permissions its the exact same control that you use to edit filesystem ACLs.And as for " nobody does this " ... Try logging onto windows as a non-administrator and editing anything in HKLM .
you ca n't.The " real " problem is that outside of a large company , all desktop users are administrators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the Registry is a good concept.
The Registry is just a file system for little data items.
The trouble is that any application can write to any part of it.
It lacks a security model.
(Yes, you can attach security restrictions to registry keys, but nobody does this, because Windows 95 didn't have that, [microsoft.com] and applications didn't have support for it.
)Um, 100\% wrong dude.
The Registry uses ACLs, just like the file system.
Infact if you edit the registry permissions its the exact same control that you use to edit filesystem ACLs.And as for "nobody does this"... Try logging onto windows as a non-administrator and editing anything in HKLM.
you can't.The "real" problem is that outside of a large company, all desktop users are administrators.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298918</id>
	<title>rofl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had no idea Windows Vista and Windows 7 still had such large install bases of malware</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had no idea Windows Vista and Windows 7 still had such large install bases of malware</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had no idea Windows Vista and Windows 7 still had such large install bases of malware</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299258</id>
	<title>Re:KB976036 has conflict with Comodo Firewall</title>
	<author>xxuserxx</author>
	<datestamp>1259605500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say comodo firewall is your issue.  Is this a business?  Why are you not using a hardware firewall?  Also why not use Microsofts firewall as 1 its built in and 2 it works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say comodo firewall is your issue .
Is this a business ?
Why are you not using a hardware firewall ?
Also why not use Microsofts firewall as 1 its built in and 2 it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say comodo firewall is your issue.
Is this a business?
Why are you not using a hardware firewall?
Also why not use Microsofts firewall as 1 its built in and 2 it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to rain on your hate parade, but in addition to the comments about the CONF files, the registry also makes Windows much easier to manage on an enterprise scale.</p><p>I can create an application, put its settings in the registry, and boom -- I can manage it through an MMC for thousands of computers with only the creation of a policy template to change settings.</p><p>The misunderstanding of the registry's use is always what people hated about it, sadly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to rain on your hate parade , but in addition to the comments about the CONF files , the registry also makes Windows much easier to manage on an enterprise scale.I can create an application , put its settings in the registry , and boom -- I can manage it through an MMC for thousands of computers with only the creation of a policy template to change settings.The misunderstanding of the registry 's use is always what people hated about it , sadly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to rain on your hate parade, but in addition to the comments about the CONF files, the registry also makes Windows much easier to manage on an enterprise scale.I can create an application, put its settings in the registry, and boom -- I can manage it through an MMC for thousands of computers with only the creation of a policy template to change settings.The misunderstanding of the registry's use is always what people hated about it, sadly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299816</id>
	<title>How is malware not microsoft's fault?</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1259608080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps if their operating system properly separated and sandboxed applications, malware<br>would have a harder time crashing the whole OS?</p><p>Just a thought. Last time I checked my watch, it was 2009, and we've known how to do<br>that sort of OS design for probably two decades now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps if their operating system properly separated and sandboxed applications , malwarewould have a harder time crashing the whole OS ? Just a thought .
Last time I checked my watch , it was 2009 , and we 've known how to dothat sort of OS design for probably two decades now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps if their operating system properly separated and sandboxed applications, malwarewould have a harder time crashing the whole OS?Just a thought.
Last time I checked my watch, it was 2009, and we've known how to dothat sort of OS design for probably two decades now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306876</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 runs 80\% of XP malware.</p><p>This is still Microsoft's fault because malware is their fault. Other systems don't have it. There's no excuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 runs 80 \ % of XP malware.This is still Microsoft 's fault because malware is their fault .
Other systems do n't have it .
There 's no excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 runs 80\% of XP malware.This is still Microsoft's fault because malware is their fault.
Other systems don't have it.
There's no excuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300080</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>nuonguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259609340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish the operating systems I use had a registry so I could remotely manage them as well.  How very insightful of you to pinpoint the exact technology that enables this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish the operating systems I use had a registry so I could remotely manage them as well .
How very insightful of you to pinpoint the exact technology that enables this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish the operating systems I use had a registry so I could remotely manage them as well.
How very insightful of you to pinpoint the exact technology that enables this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300344</id>
	<title>Re:Malware, still?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259610540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>UPS WorldShip software still requires users to be admin when it's installed and also every time it runs. Many small businesses (think Mom-and-Pop shops) use this.<br> <br>We begged and pleaded for a solution from UPS to no avail, despite our rather large UPS shipping volume (millions of dollars). They came across as less clueful than other vendors so we switched to a competitor; our prices actually went down and the new software doesn't have this issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>UPS WorldShip software still requires users to be admin when it 's installed and also every time it runs .
Many small businesses ( think Mom-and-Pop shops ) use this .
We begged and pleaded for a solution from UPS to no avail , despite our rather large UPS shipping volume ( millions of dollars ) .
They came across as less clueful than other vendors so we switched to a competitor ; our prices actually went down and the new software does n't have this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UPS WorldShip software still requires users to be admin when it's installed and also every time it runs.
Many small businesses (think Mom-and-Pop shops) use this.
We begged and pleaded for a solution from UPS to no avail, despite our rather large UPS shipping volume (millions of dollars).
They came across as less clueful than other vendors so we switched to a competitor; our prices actually went down and the new software doesn't have this issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299388</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry.  It's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat.  Sure, they let you see the fish, but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.</p><p>The Windows registry has always been a bane of Windows use since it's inception.</p></div><p>Because Malware would clearly have trouble modifying the config files that would be used instead?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry .
It 's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat .
Sure , they let you see the fish , but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.The Windows registry has always been a bane of Windows use since it 's inception.Because Malware would clearly have trouble modifying the config files that would be used instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry.
It's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat.
Sure, they let you see the fish, but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.The Windows registry has always been a bane of Windows use since it's inception.Because Malware would clearly have trouble modifying the config files that would be used instead?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299208</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259605380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. I have been saying this since it was announced.</p><p>Yes, they need a place to put shared data, but nothing that is critical to the operation of an OS or application should ever be put there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I have been saying this since it was announced.Yes , they need a place to put shared data , but nothing that is critical to the operation of an OS or application should ever be put there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I have been saying this since it was announced.Yes, they need a place to put shared data, but nothing that is critical to the operation of an OS or application should ever be put there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299330</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>I\_have\_a\_life</author>
	<datestamp>1259605920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a completely bullshi** statement. How does the article in any way suggest that Windows 7 is more susceptible to malware? And more susceptible compared to what? And where exactly are you getting the data that suggests a large percentage is suffering from this?

I know this is Slashdot but could you at least make an effort to provide some evidence of statements you are making.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a completely bullshi * * statement .
How does the article in any way suggest that Windows 7 is more susceptible to malware ?
And more susceptible compared to what ?
And where exactly are you getting the data that suggests a large percentage is suffering from this ?
I know this is Slashdot but could you at least make an effort to provide some evidence of statements you are making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a completely bullshi** statement.
How does the article in any way suggest that Windows 7 is more susceptible to malware?
And more susceptible compared to what?
And where exactly are you getting the data that suggests a large percentage is suffering from this?
I know this is Slashdot but could you at least make an effort to provide some evidence of statements you are making.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300296</id>
	<title>Re:System Registry</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1259610360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry.  It's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat.  Sure, they let you see the fish, but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.</p></div><p>Uh, how often do fish break through port holes on ships? I'd be willing to bet there isn't a single recorded instance of this happening. I see what you're trying to say, but the analogy makes for a very bad argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry .
It 's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat .
Sure , they let you see the fish , but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.Uh , how often do fish break through port holes on ships ?
I 'd be willing to bet there is n't a single recorded instance of this happening .
I see what you 're trying to say , but the analogy makes for a very bad argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry.
It's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat.
Sure, they let you see the fish, but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.Uh, how often do fish break through port holes on ships?
I'd be willing to bet there isn't a single recorded instance of this happening.
I see what you're trying to say, but the analogy makes for a very bad argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30302934</id>
	<title>Re:It's all just posturing.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259576940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Banks would be a lot more robbable if bank robbery were legal, and there would be a lot less adultery if adultery were a felony. Copy protection is an unatainable goal due to the fact that if you have the CD/movie, you also have the key.</p><p>If market share were the deciding factor, Apache would be the most hacked web server there is; it has the lion's share of web servers. But IIS is the most hacked web server, despite its lack of popularity.</p><p>Liquor stores still get robbed, despite the fact that there are banks nearby, <b>because the bank has better security</b>. Like Apache vs IIS.</p><p>There are millions of Apples sold every year. You could make a HUGE Apple botnet, but why rob the bank and risk certain capture when you can hit the liquor store and get away scott free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Banks would be a lot more robbable if bank robbery were legal , and there would be a lot less adultery if adultery were a felony .
Copy protection is an unatainable goal due to the fact that if you have the CD/movie , you also have the key.If market share were the deciding factor , Apache would be the most hacked web server there is ; it has the lion 's share of web servers .
But IIS is the most hacked web server , despite its lack of popularity.Liquor stores still get robbed , despite the fact that there are banks nearby , because the bank has better security .
Like Apache vs IIS.There are millions of Apples sold every year .
You could make a HUGE Apple botnet , but why rob the bank and risk certain capture when you can hit the liquor store and get away scott free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banks would be a lot more robbable if bank robbery were legal, and there would be a lot less adultery if adultery were a felony.
Copy protection is an unatainable goal due to the fact that if you have the CD/movie, you also have the key.If market share were the deciding factor, Apache would be the most hacked web server there is; it has the lion's share of web servers.
But IIS is the most hacked web server, despite its lack of popularity.Liquor stores still get robbed, despite the fact that there are banks nearby, because the bank has better security.
Like Apache vs IIS.There are millions of Apples sold every year.
You could make a HUGE Apple botnet, but why rob the bank and risk certain capture when you can hit the liquor store and get away scott free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299144</id>
	<title>Fault</title>
	<author>electricbern</author>
	<datestamp>1259605140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not Microsoft's fault, it is YOUR fault for using a MS product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not Microsoft 's fault , it is YOUR fault for using a MS product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not Microsoft's fault, it is YOUR fault for using a MS product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300052</id>
	<title>Grovelling?</title>
	<author>NeverWorker1</author>
	<datestamp>1259609160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't really see any grovelling, but that really is what they should be doing.  The headlines microsoft got out of this were terrible.  It was a major PR fiasco for them.  Prevx should consider themselves lucky MS isn't suing for libel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't really see any grovelling , but that really is what they should be doing .
The headlines microsoft got out of this were terrible .
It was a major PR fiasco for them .
Prevx should consider themselves lucky MS is n't suing for libel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't really see any grovelling, but that really is what they should be doing.
The headlines microsoft got out of this were terrible.
It was a major PR fiasco for them.
Prevx should consider themselves lucky MS isn't suing for libel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299990</id>
	<title>Re:Is that any better excuse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DId you rad the link? this is not being reported by very m...</p></div><p>Look I know many here consider Microsoft products a cancer, but c'mon already..!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DId you rad the link ?
this is not being reported by very m...Look I know many here consider Microsoft products a cancer , but c'mon already.. !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DId you rad the link?
this is not being reported by very m...Look I know many here consider Microsoft products a cancer, but c'mon already..!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301142</id>
	<title>Re:Malware, still?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1259614380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe, but a lot of things that think they need admin rights really don't, and so shouldn't be asking.  Sure, it's not the user's fault that SuperPaint2009 asks for admin rights when you want to print, but that's not because programs need admin rights to send junk to the print queue.</p><p>And anyway, they should change the name.  It shouln't be "admin rights" which implies a maximum level of authority, and who wouldn't want to maximize their authority.  It should be "maintenance access" or something.  You don't drive around with the hood up because that maximizes your authority over the car, you only put the hood up when you want to work on the stuff under the hood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , but a lot of things that think they need admin rights really do n't , and so should n't be asking .
Sure , it 's not the user 's fault that SuperPaint2009 asks for admin rights when you want to print , but that 's not because programs need admin rights to send junk to the print queue.And anyway , they should change the name .
It shoul n't be " admin rights " which implies a maximum level of authority , and who would n't want to maximize their authority .
It should be " maintenance access " or something .
You do n't drive around with the hood up because that maximizes your authority over the car , you only put the hood up when you want to work on the stuff under the hood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, but a lot of things that think they need admin rights really don't, and so shouldn't be asking.
Sure, it's not the user's fault that SuperPaint2009 asks for admin rights when you want to print, but that's not because programs need admin rights to send junk to the print queue.And anyway, they should change the name.
It shouln't be "admin rights" which implies a maximum level of authority, and who wouldn't want to maximize their authority.
It should be "maintenance access" or something.
You don't drive around with the hood up because that maximizes your authority over the car, you only put the hood up when you want to work on the stuff under the hood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080</id>
	<title>Malware, still?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1259604900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that the windows users are probably still insisting on logging into their new windows 7 systems with full administrator rights.  From what I have seen, &gt;90\% of malware is completely useless when it tries to deploy on a system where the logged in user has user access instead of administrator rights.<br> <br>
In other words, this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that the windows users are probably still insisting on logging into their new windows 7 systems with full administrator rights .
From what I have seen , &gt; 90 \ % of malware is completely useless when it tries to deploy on a system where the logged in user has user access instead of administrator rights .
In other words , this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that the windows users are probably still insisting on logging into their new windows 7 systems with full administrator rights.
From what I have seen, &gt;90\% of malware is completely useless when it tries to deploy on a system where the logged in user has user access instead of administrator rights.
In other words, this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301046</id>
	<title>How much did M$ pay for the retraction?</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1259613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Honey I'm home!  Guess what!  Turns out we TOTALLY goofed on that black screen of death thing!  Yeah, hard to believe, we checked it like five times and everything.  Turns out it was just some malware!  Yup, those pesky kids...  In other news I bought us matching BMW's!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Honey I 'm home !
Guess what !
Turns out we TOTALLY goofed on that black screen of death thing !
Yeah , hard to believe , we checked it like five times and everything .
Turns out it was just some malware !
Yup , those pesky kids... In other news I bought us matching BMW 's !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Honey I'm home!
Guess what!
Turns out we TOTALLY goofed on that black screen of death thing!
Yeah, hard to believe, we checked it like five times and everything.
Turns out it was just some malware!
Yup, those pesky kids...  In other news I bought us matching BMW's!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299572</id>
	<title>Microsoft should be the one grovelling...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1259606940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...as yet again, even with a year of RC testing, we're a month deep into the release of a "new and improved" OS that is obviously just as vulnerable as previous OSes with malware...Spank you very much, Micro$haft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...as yet again , even with a year of RC testing , we 're a month deep into the release of a " new and improved " OS that is obviously just as vulnerable as previous OSes with malware...Spank you very much , Micro $ haft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as yet again, even with a year of RC testing, we're a month deep into the release of a "new and improved" OS that is obviously just as vulnerable as previous OSes with malware...Spank you very much, Micro$haft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300500</id>
	<title>As if that makes it any better.....</title>
	<author>Tangential</author>
	<datestamp>1259611260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They put out a system that is inordinately susceptible to malware, but somehow its not their responsibility when the malware damages the system.

Its interesting that most manufacturers are viewed as liable when their products are faulty and yet nothing is ever Microsoft's fault.

I'll bet that the manufacturers of Polybutyl plumbing pipes, Masonite siding, plenty of cribs and children's toys and asbestos products wish that they could use that defense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They put out a system that is inordinately susceptible to malware , but somehow its not their responsibility when the malware damages the system .
Its interesting that most manufacturers are viewed as liable when their products are faulty and yet nothing is ever Microsoft 's fault .
I 'll bet that the manufacturers of Polybutyl plumbing pipes , Masonite siding , plenty of cribs and children 's toys and asbestos products wish that they could use that defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They put out a system that is inordinately susceptible to malware, but somehow its not their responsibility when the malware damages the system.
Its interesting that most manufacturers are viewed as liable when their products are faulty and yet nothing is ever Microsoft's fault.
I'll bet that the manufacturers of Polybutyl plumbing pipes, Masonite siding, plenty of cribs and children's toys and asbestos products wish that they could use that defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30307250</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it does</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1259599560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The base issue is that in Windows 7 Microsoft weakened UAC, so even if you have it disabled a program can do some system level things without warning if you are logged in as administrator. Why should Microsoft get a pass for doing this? Sudo doesn't have these kinds of holes built in...</i>
</p><p>Sure it does.  The rough equivalent in UNIX is a SUID root binary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The base issue is that in Windows 7 Microsoft weakened UAC , so even if you have it disabled a program can do some system level things without warning if you are logged in as administrator .
Why should Microsoft get a pass for doing this ?
Sudo does n't have these kinds of holes built in.. . Sure it does .
The rough equivalent in UNIX is a SUID root binary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The base issue is that in Windows 7 Microsoft weakened UAC, so even if you have it disabled a program can do some system level things without warning if you are logged in as administrator.
Why should Microsoft get a pass for doing this?
Sudo doesn't have these kinds of holes built in...
Sure it does.
The rough equivalent in UNIX is a SUID root binary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299226</id>
	<title>c0m</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Of progr3ss.</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of progr3ss .
[ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of progr3ss.
[goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30308826</id>
	<title>Re:malware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except Aero. I just tried encoding a video for the first time since switching to Win7 Pro x64, and it turns out that Aero causes temps of 77 CPU (on a 25W TDP P7370!!!) and 86 GPU - on XP (or without Aero), these are 65 and 63, respectively.</p><p>And yes, I do categorize software that makes my laptop melt as malware...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Aero .
I just tried encoding a video for the first time since switching to Win7 Pro x64 , and it turns out that Aero causes temps of 77 CPU ( on a 25W TDP P7370 ! ! !
) and 86 GPU - on XP ( or without Aero ) , these are 65 and 63 , respectively.And yes , I do categorize software that makes my laptop melt as malware.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Aero.
I just tried encoding a video for the first time since switching to Win7 Pro x64, and it turns out that Aero causes temps of 77 CPU (on a 25W TDP P7370!!!
) and 86 GPU - on XP (or without Aero), these are 65 and 63, respectively.And yes, I do categorize software that makes my laptop melt as malware...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30303796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30307126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30307952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30302934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30304364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30307250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30328702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30308826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1539251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30304364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299622
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30307250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30307126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30328702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30308826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30307952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30303796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30302934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30306660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30298978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30301142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30300148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1539251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1539251.30299556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
