<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_08_2011251</id>
	<title>Microsoft To Get Malware Bailout In Germany</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260264960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>hweimer writes <i>"The German government plans on <a href="http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Germany-to-set-up-centre-to-coordinate-fight-against-botnets-880077.html">paying to set up a call center</a> to help Windows users with malware infections. I think this has the effect of being a <a href="http://www.quantenblog.net/security/microsoft-malware-bailout">malware bailout for Microsoft</a>, discouraging them and other software companies from writing better code and giving users little incentive to switch to more secure alternatives. How much government money is needed to run the call center is also not revealed."</i> The call center, running in cooperation with ISPs (but not manufacturers), is envisioned to have a staff of about 40.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hweimer writes " The German government plans on paying to set up a call center to help Windows users with malware infections .
I think this has the effect of being a malware bailout for Microsoft , discouraging them and other software companies from writing better code and giving users little incentive to switch to more secure alternatives .
How much government money is needed to run the call center is also not revealed .
" The call center , running in cooperation with ISPs ( but not manufacturers ) , is envisioned to have a staff of about 40 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hweimer writes "The German government plans on paying to set up a call center to help Windows users with malware infections.
I think this has the effect of being a malware bailout for Microsoft, discouraging them and other software companies from writing better code and giving users little incentive to switch to more secure alternatives.
How much government money is needed to run the call center is also not revealed.
" The call center, running in cooperation with ISPs (but not manufacturers), is envisioned to have a staff of about 40.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374998</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't even know ponies <i>could</i> talk to strangers. If I did, I'd have been more careful when I told my pony all my secrets.</p><p>Guess I'm screwed. I wonder if there's a government support line for people whose pony has blabbed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't even know ponies could talk to strangers .
If I did , I 'd have been more careful when I told my pony all my secrets.Guess I 'm screwed .
I wonder if there 's a government support line for people whose pony has blabbed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't even know ponies could talk to strangers.
If I did, I'd have been more careful when I told my pony all my secrets.Guess I'm screwed.
I wonder if there's a government support line for people whose pony has blabbed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371318</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260271500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This isn't the role of government.</p></div><p>The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be. No more, and no less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't the role of government.The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be .
No more , and no less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't the role of government.The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be.
No more, and no less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30377522</id>
	<title>Are you saying monopolies are a BAD thing?</title>
	<author>Benfea</author>
	<datestamp>1259599920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Bush administration nobly stood up to the "anti trust" nonsense from the extreme left and allowed many smaller financial companies to merge into a small number of large financial companies that were too big to fail.</p><p>Thanks to saint Bush's great wisdom, the companies on Wall Street were too big to fail when the financial markets ran into trouble. If the far left had prevented all those mergers, then those companies would not have been too big to fail, and so they would have failed during the financial troubles that were caused by over-regulation of Wall Street by the communists in the Democrat party.</p><p>Thank god we had someone as smart as Bush in the White House back then.</p><p>[/strawman]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bush administration nobly stood up to the " anti trust " nonsense from the extreme left and allowed many smaller financial companies to merge into a small number of large financial companies that were too big to fail.Thanks to saint Bush 's great wisdom , the companies on Wall Street were too big to fail when the financial markets ran into trouble .
If the far left had prevented all those mergers , then those companies would not have been too big to fail , and so they would have failed during the financial troubles that were caused by over-regulation of Wall Street by the communists in the Democrat party.Thank god we had someone as smart as Bush in the White House back then .
[ /strawman ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bush administration nobly stood up to the "anti trust" nonsense from the extreme left and allowed many smaller financial companies to merge into a small number of large financial companies that were too big to fail.Thanks to saint Bush's great wisdom, the companies on Wall Street were too big to fail when the financial markets ran into trouble.
If the far left had prevented all those mergers, then those companies would not have been too big to fail, and so they would have failed during the financial troubles that were caused by over-regulation of Wall Street by the communists in the Democrat party.Thank god we had someone as smart as Bush in the White House back then.
[/strawman]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374398</id>
	<title>Re:Government provides product specific help for f</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1260297600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> fail to see how government specific help around one specific product from one specific company, is not a bailout.</i></p><p>However, that's not what the actual article (not the summary) discusses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fail to see how government specific help around one specific product from one specific company , is not a bailout.However , that 's not what the actual article ( not the summary ) discusses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> fail to see how government specific help around one specific product from one specific company, is not a bailout.However, that's not what the actual article (not the summary) discusses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30377180</id>
	<title>NOW it's time to get a job there!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259597880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Preferably as a managing director!</p><p>Because the first thing you will do, is tell every single calling user, how to remove the worst of all malware from his computer:<br>1. Download Linux CD/DVD.<br>2. Burn to disc. (Do not take the disk out).<br>3. Reboot.<br>4. Click OK or press Enter, until you see a desktop again.</p><p>I&rsquo;m seriously considering to send them my job application for that very reason. Don&rsquo;t care, even if I&rsquo;m fired again. Been there, lived trough it, got on my legs again. Pfft. ^^<br>Besides, it would be a hell of a lot of fun.<br>Especially, if they&rsquo;d decide to fire me anyway. Then I&rsquo;d come barefoot, not showered or shaved all week, in trash clothes, at 10 am. And piss in the corner on the last day. ^^<br>I&rsquo;m no approval junkie. And you can&rsquo;t punish someone who got nothing to lose because it&rsquo;s not worth anyting for him anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Preferably as a managing director ! Because the first thing you will do , is tell every single calling user , how to remove the worst of all malware from his computer : 1 .
Download Linux CD/DVD.2 .
Burn to disc .
( Do not take the disk out ) .3 .
Reboot.4. Click OK or press Enter , until you see a desktop again.I    m seriously considering to send them my job application for that very reason .
Don    t care , even if I    m fired again .
Been there , lived trough it , got on my legs again .
Pfft. ^ ^ Besides , it would be a hell of a lot of fun.Especially , if they    d decide to fire me anyway .
Then I    d come barefoot , not showered or shaved all week , in trash clothes , at 10 am .
And piss in the corner on the last day .
^ ^ I    m no approval junkie .
And you can    t punish someone who got nothing to lose because it    s not worth anyting for him anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Preferably as a managing director!Because the first thing you will do, is tell every single calling user, how to remove the worst of all malware from his computer:1.
Download Linux CD/DVD.2.
Burn to disc.
(Do not take the disk out).3.
Reboot.4. Click OK or press Enter, until you see a desktop again.I’m seriously considering to send them my job application for that very reason.
Don’t care, even if I’m fired again.
Been there, lived trough it, got on my legs again.
Pfft. ^^Besides, it would be a hell of a lot of fun.Especially, if they’d decide to fire me anyway.
Then I’d come barefoot, not showered or shaved all week, in trash clothes, at 10 am.
And piss in the corner on the last day.
^^I’m no approval junkie.
And you can’t punish someone who got nothing to lose because it’s not worth anyting for him anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373680</id>
	<title>Make the criminals pay</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1260288240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> Why cant ISPS,FBI,CIA,Local law enforcement look for signatures the criminals use top send instructions to the bot nets. If its so easy to spy on our buying habits on line by advertisers i cant see why they don't use that same technology to catch criminals. Make the criminals pay for the cleanup,sell everything they own to finance it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why cant ISPS,FBI,CIA,Local law enforcement look for signatures the criminals use top send instructions to the bot nets .
If its so easy to spy on our buying habits on line by advertisers i cant see why they do n't use that same technology to catch criminals .
Make the criminals pay for the cleanup,sell everything they own to finance it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why cant ISPS,FBI,CIA,Local law enforcement look for signatures the criminals use top send instructions to the bot nets.
If its so easy to spy on our buying habits on line by advertisers i cant see why they don't use that same technology to catch criminals.
Make the criminals pay for the cleanup,sell everything they own to finance it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372768</id>
	<title>Only a staff of 40???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260280200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's barely enough service 20 windows machines!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's barely enough service 20 windows machines !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's barely enough service 20 windows machines!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370922</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anything windows is now more secure than linux in the user space these days. For one, no user space programs can keylog your admin password with UAC. However they can keylog your root password with sudo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything windows is now more secure than linux in the user space these days .
For one , no user space programs can keylog your admin password with UAC .
However they can keylog your root password with sudo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anything windows is now more secure than linux in the user space these days.
For one, no user space programs can keylog your admin password with UAC.
However they can keylog your root password with sudo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370884</id>
	<title>Windows is vulnerable because that is profitable.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Malware problem is usually because of user stupidity."</i>

<br> <br>Does that mean users of Apple computers are far smarter than users of Windows computers?

<br> <br>Anyhow, maybe when people call the call center number, they will hear, in German, <i>"Dummy! Get Linux. Or, at least Apple."</i>

<br> <br>That's a joke, but it could go in that direction. People at the call center could educate callers that the apparent reason Microsoft products have so many vulnerabilities is that Microsoft top managers don't allow Microsoft programmers to finish their work. Unfinished, vulnerable, buggy, limited software makes more money when a company has a virtual monopoly because then the company can sell "upgrades" and upgrades and upgrades and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Malware problem is usually because of user stupidity .
" Does that mean users of Apple computers are far smarter than users of Windows computers ?
Anyhow , maybe when people call the call center number , they will hear , in German , " Dummy !
Get Linux .
Or , at least Apple .
" That 's a joke , but it could go in that direction .
People at the call center could educate callers that the apparent reason Microsoft products have so many vulnerabilities is that Microsoft top managers do n't allow Microsoft programmers to finish their work .
Unfinished , vulnerable , buggy , limited software makes more money when a company has a virtual monopoly because then the company can sell " upgrades " and upgrades and upgrades and ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Malware problem is usually because of user stupidity.
"

 Does that mean users of Apple computers are far smarter than users of Windows computers?
Anyhow, maybe when people call the call center number, they will hear, in German, "Dummy!
Get Linux.
Or, at least Apple.
"

 That's a joke, but it could go in that direction.
People at the call center could educate callers that the apparent reason Microsoft products have so many vulnerabilities is that Microsoft top managers don't allow Microsoft programmers to finish their work.
Unfinished, vulnerable, buggy, limited software makes more money when a company has a virtual monopoly because then the company can sell "upgrades" and upgrades and upgrades and ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374470</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1260298680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>No matter how much the apologists bray, the fact is that Windows has the most infections.</i>
</p><p>As they say so commonly on Slashdot, Correlation != Causation.
</p><p> <i>but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself! </i>
</p><p>For example ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how much the apologists bray , the fact is that Windows has the most infections .
As they say so commonly on Slashdot , Correlation ! = Causation .
but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself !
For example ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No matter how much the apologists bray, the fact is that Windows has the most infections.
As they say so commonly on Slashdot, Correlation != Causation.
but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself!
For example ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371960</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1260275040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the largest number of machines was Apple, or Linux, or operating system abcdefg that operating system would have simular issues with malware.</p><p>The most used OS == biggest target. That being said, will the person at microsoft who decided that the first or default account is an administrator please stand up. You need to be beaten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the largest number of machines was Apple , or Linux , or operating system abcdefg that operating system would have simular issues with malware.The most used OS = = biggest target .
That being said , will the person at microsoft who decided that the first or default account is an administrator please stand up .
You need to be beaten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the largest number of machines was Apple, or Linux, or operating system abcdefg that operating system would have simular issues with malware.The most used OS == biggest target.
That being said, will the person at microsoft who decided that the first or default account is an administrator please stand up.
You need to be beaten.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371522</id>
	<title>40 staffs? I suggest 0 instead.</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1260272520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Thank you for calling the malware eradication center. Please wait while we look up the address associated with the number you are calling from. Press # to manually enter an address."<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br> <br>

"Your address has been located and your will receive your free ubuntu CD within 2 business days. Thank you and have a nice day."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thank you for calling the malware eradication center .
Please wait while we look up the address associated with the number you are calling from .
Press # to manually enter an address .
" .. . " Your address has been located and your will receive your free ubuntu CD within 2 business days .
Thank you and have a nice day .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thank you for calling the malware eradication center.
Please wait while we look up the address associated with the number you are calling from.
Press # to manually enter an address.
"  ... 

"Your address has been located and your will receive your free ubuntu CD within 2 business days.
Thank you and have a nice day.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372500</id>
	<title>Still can't moderate stories after posted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260278220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we could, this idiotic rant would have been rightfully buried.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we could , this idiotic rant would have been rightfully buried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we could, this idiotic rant would have been rightfully buried.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1260274680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be. No more, and no less.</p></div></blockquote><p>The full extent of that reasoning: if 51\% of the people say the other 49\% should be enslaved, the ballot makes it right.</p><p>Hell no, that can't be right. The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose. No more, no less -- with emphasis on the "no more" bit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be .
No more , and no less.The full extent of that reasoning : if 51 \ % of the people say the other 49 \ % should be enslaved , the ballot makes it right.Hell no , that ca n't be right .
The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen 's inalienable rights ; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose .
No more , no less -- with emphasis on the " no more " bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be.
No more, and no less.The full extent of that reasoning: if 51\% of the people say the other 49\% should be enslaved, the ballot makes it right.Hell no, that can't be right.
The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose.
No more, no less -- with emphasis on the "no more" bit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373258</id>
	<title>The Call Center is Apply Named</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1260284160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"BSI"<br>
<br>
I can't help but wonder if this might be a way for folks to be directed to <a href="http://www.knoppix.net/" title="knoppix.net">Knoppix?</a> [knoppix.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" BSI " I ca n't help but wonder if this might be a way for folks to be directed to Knoppix ?
[ knoppix.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"BSI"

I can't help but wonder if this might be a way for folks to be directed to Knoppix?
[knoppix.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372266</id>
	<title>perhaps they will suggest Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260276960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best solution for Windows malware extraction is to install Linux. Simple to install, setup, and use. Safe and secure for the masses.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best solution for Windows malware extraction is to install Linux .
Simple to install , setup , and use .
Safe and secure for the masses .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best solution for Windows malware extraction is to install Linux.
Simple to install, setup, and use.
Safe and secure for the masses.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370920</id>
	<title>If you subsidize stupidity...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you get more of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you get more of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you get more of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372896</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1260281100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"1. This isn't the role of government."</p><p>I don't know.  I used to think government should just bugger off, and leave people alone.  But, they insist on meddling in every facet of citizen's lives anyway. Hell, government spends 25 to 30\% of my paycheck before I ever get to see how much I've earned!!  If government is so intimately involved in all our lives anyway, government might as well slap around those people who ARE running a spambot from their machine.  Knowingly, or not.  Ain't no malware on MY machines, why should I tolerate the slowdown of the internet because 6 of my neighbors are infected with every malware  known to man and martian?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 1 .
This is n't the role of government .
" I do n't know .
I used to think government should just bugger off , and leave people alone .
But , they insist on meddling in every facet of citizen 's lives anyway .
Hell , government spends 25 to 30 \ % of my paycheck before I ever get to see how much I 've earned ! !
If government is so intimately involved in all our lives anyway , government might as well slap around those people who ARE running a spambot from their machine .
Knowingly , or not .
Ai n't no malware on MY machines , why should I tolerate the slowdown of the internet because 6 of my neighbors are infected with every malware known to man and martian ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"1.
This isn't the role of government.
"I don't know.
I used to think government should just bugger off, and leave people alone.
But, they insist on meddling in every facet of citizen's lives anyway.
Hell, government spends 25 to 30\% of my paycheck before I ever get to see how much I've earned!!
If government is so intimately involved in all our lives anyway, government might as well slap around those people who ARE running a spambot from their machine.
Knowingly, or not.
Ain't no malware on MY machines, why should I tolerate the slowdown of the internet because 6 of my neighbors are infected with every malware  known to man and martian?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372522</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260278340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all about the size of the user base. Car analogy...</p><p>I have a car that comes with the best security system. My car is also very popular. It gets broken into more than the unpopular car where thieves may not have spent the time honing their skills to break into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about the size of the user base .
Car analogy...I have a car that comes with the best security system .
My car is also very popular .
It gets broken into more than the unpopular car where thieves may not have spent the time honing their skills to break into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about the size of the user base.
Car analogy...I have a car that comes with the best security system.
My car is also very popular.
It gets broken into more than the unpopular car where thieves may not have spent the time honing their skills to break into it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371468</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>MBaldelli</author>
	<datestamp>1260272160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2.  No matter how much the apologists bray, the fact is that Windows has the most infections.  The proof is in the pudding!  Yes, user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself!  Will the infections ever go toward zero even with the best designs but dumbest users?  No.  But it sure doesn't excuse it being in the other extreme for Windows.</p></div><p>I think you miss the perspective on the level of human stupidity that's out there using computers.  On a day to day basis, from any of these categories at least 20 times a night from people calling in looking to connect their laptops to a Wi-Fi Hotspot in a <b>Hotel</b>:</p><p>	 My internet isn't working, send someone up now to fix my problem!!!</p><p>	 My name and room number don't match, I'm running Windows 97</p><p>	 I'm calling from Room xxxx please turn on the internet for this room (It's always on, this is why it's Wi-Fi just like at Starbuck's).  </p><p>	 You mean I have to have my laptop on in order for me to use the Internet? </p><p>	 I'm running the newest Windows -- Windows 2007 -- and I can't get it to find any Wi-Fi Hotspot  </p><p>	 What do you mean I have to pay for the network wire?!  You need to comp me for that immediately!</p><p>	 I'm on my business' laptop and I don't know what I'm looking at, can you remote into my computer and show me?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
No matter how much the apologists bray , the fact is that Windows has the most infections .
The proof is in the pudding !
Yes , user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself !
Will the infections ever go toward zero even with the best designs but dumbest users ?
No. But it sure does n't excuse it being in the other extreme for Windows.I think you miss the perspective on the level of human stupidity that 's out there using computers .
On a day to day basis , from any of these categories at least 20 times a night from people calling in looking to connect their laptops to a Wi-Fi Hotspot in a Hotel : My internet is n't working , send someone up now to fix my problem ! ! !
My name and room number do n't match , I 'm running Windows 97 I 'm calling from Room xxxx please turn on the internet for this room ( It 's always on , this is why it 's Wi-Fi just like at Starbuck 's ) .
You mean I have to have my laptop on in order for me to use the Internet ?
I 'm running the newest Windows -- Windows 2007 -- and I ca n't get it to find any Wi-Fi Hotspot What do you mean I have to pay for the network wire ? !
You need to comp me for that immediately !
I 'm on my business ' laptop and I do n't know what I 'm looking at , can you remote into my computer and show me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
No matter how much the apologists bray, the fact is that Windows has the most infections.
The proof is in the pudding!
Yes, user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself!
Will the infections ever go toward zero even with the best designs but dumbest users?
No.  But it sure doesn't excuse it being in the other extreme for Windows.I think you miss the perspective on the level of human stupidity that's out there using computers.
On a day to day basis, from any of these categories at least 20 times a night from people calling in looking to connect their laptops to a Wi-Fi Hotspot in a Hotel:	 My internet isn't working, send someone up now to fix my problem!!!
My name and room number don't match, I'm running Windows 97	 I'm calling from Room xxxx please turn on the internet for this room (It's always on, this is why it's Wi-Fi just like at Starbuck's).
You mean I have to have my laptop on in order for me to use the Internet?
I'm running the newest Windows -- Windows 2007 -- and I can't get it to find any Wi-Fi Hotspot  	 What do you mean I have to pay for the network wire?!
You need to comp me for that immediately!
I'm on my business' laptop and I don't know what I'm looking at, can you remote into my computer and show me?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371828</id>
	<title>Not that I feel particular affected</title>
	<author>32771</author>
	<datestamp>1260274260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it should be set up in Munich they should have some clue about installing Linux.</p><p>Now I remember that I just recently had to cleanup somebody's computer and didn't install Linux. Damn, I have become so complacent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it should be set up in Munich they should have some clue about installing Linux.Now I remember that I just recently had to cleanup somebody 's computer and did n't install Linux .
Damn , I have become so complacent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it should be set up in Munich they should have some clue about installing Linux.Now I remember that I just recently had to cleanup somebody's computer and didn't install Linux.
Damn, I have become so complacent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371566</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260272760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for me to play devil's advocate here:</p><p>Windows used to have some critical design flaws. XP had three main ones.  ActiveX, no real user/administrator priv separation by default (although a clued user would fix that), and autorun.inf mindlessly executing anything on a CD without asking.  Of course, there would be running without the XP firewall that would add a fourth issue.</p><p>However, Vista and Windows 7 fixed all these issues.  The firewall is on by default.  Vista doesn't just automatically run a CD's autorun script.  ActiveX is pretty much turned off, and not even used if you use another browser.  Finally, administrator and user rights are separated by UAC.</p><p>This is really something one can't compare fact for fact on.  Is Windows attacked the most because it has weaknesses, or is it attacked the most because blackhats get the most bang for their buck due to the operating system's popularity?</p><p>Rewind to about 1991-1992.  Back then, Linux was still being fleshed out, and was primarily a tinker's tool.  In production, the main operating system you would encounter past the glass walls was SunOS 4.1.x or Solaris 2.x.  Since the jump to Solaris 2 was such a big move for a lot of businesses, they stuck on 4.1.x.  Of course, because SunOS was the #1 OS on the Internet, it was the #1 choice for crackers to attack.  All the whining I see about Microsoft, I've seen almost verbatim aimed at commercial UNIX providing companies before Windows had an official TCP/IP stack.</p><p>As for user stupidy, you can always take functionality away in return for security.  For example, you won't see much malware on a PS3 Slim because nobody has even gotten a crack or modchip going for it.  However, it won't do much for a user other than play games on it (The Slim has no hypervisor to allow Linux to run.)  On the other scale, if you sit an uneducated user at a Linux root prompt, they have the best footshooting tools in existance.  Similar with a ChromeOS appliance.  It won't have malware issues, but the tradeoff will be not having local apps or much local storage.</p><p>So, Microsoft may not be perfect, but Windows 7 is light years ahead of XP in security.  With ASLR, full disk encryption, encrypted backup volumes, and downloadable antivirus, it can be argued that it is a generation ahead of OS X when it comes to security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for me to play devil 's advocate here : Windows used to have some critical design flaws .
XP had three main ones .
ActiveX , no real user/administrator priv separation by default ( although a clued user would fix that ) , and autorun.inf mindlessly executing anything on a CD without asking .
Of course , there would be running without the XP firewall that would add a fourth issue.However , Vista and Windows 7 fixed all these issues .
The firewall is on by default .
Vista does n't just automatically run a CD 's autorun script .
ActiveX is pretty much turned off , and not even used if you use another browser .
Finally , administrator and user rights are separated by UAC.This is really something one ca n't compare fact for fact on .
Is Windows attacked the most because it has weaknesses , or is it attacked the most because blackhats get the most bang for their buck due to the operating system 's popularity ? Rewind to about 1991-1992 .
Back then , Linux was still being fleshed out , and was primarily a tinker 's tool .
In production , the main operating system you would encounter past the glass walls was SunOS 4.1.x or Solaris 2.x .
Since the jump to Solaris 2 was such a big move for a lot of businesses , they stuck on 4.1.x .
Of course , because SunOS was the # 1 OS on the Internet , it was the # 1 choice for crackers to attack .
All the whining I see about Microsoft , I 've seen almost verbatim aimed at commercial UNIX providing companies before Windows had an official TCP/IP stack.As for user stupidy , you can always take functionality away in return for security .
For example , you wo n't see much malware on a PS3 Slim because nobody has even gotten a crack or modchip going for it .
However , it wo n't do much for a user other than play games on it ( The Slim has no hypervisor to allow Linux to run .
) On the other scale , if you sit an uneducated user at a Linux root prompt , they have the best footshooting tools in existance .
Similar with a ChromeOS appliance .
It wo n't have malware issues , but the tradeoff will be not having local apps or much local storage.So , Microsoft may not be perfect , but Windows 7 is light years ahead of XP in security .
With ASLR , full disk encryption , encrypted backup volumes , and downloadable antivirus , it can be argued that it is a generation ahead of OS X when it comes to security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for me to play devil's advocate here:Windows used to have some critical design flaws.
XP had three main ones.
ActiveX, no real user/administrator priv separation by default (although a clued user would fix that), and autorun.inf mindlessly executing anything on a CD without asking.
Of course, there would be running without the XP firewall that would add a fourth issue.However, Vista and Windows 7 fixed all these issues.
The firewall is on by default.
Vista doesn't just automatically run a CD's autorun script.
ActiveX is pretty much turned off, and not even used if you use another browser.
Finally, administrator and user rights are separated by UAC.This is really something one can't compare fact for fact on.
Is Windows attacked the most because it has weaknesses, or is it attacked the most because blackhats get the most bang for their buck due to the operating system's popularity?Rewind to about 1991-1992.
Back then, Linux was still being fleshed out, and was primarily a tinker's tool.
In production, the main operating system you would encounter past the glass walls was SunOS 4.1.x or Solaris 2.x.
Since the jump to Solaris 2 was such a big move for a lot of businesses, they stuck on 4.1.x.
Of course, because SunOS was the #1 OS on the Internet, it was the #1 choice for crackers to attack.
All the whining I see about Microsoft, I've seen almost verbatim aimed at commercial UNIX providing companies before Windows had an official TCP/IP stack.As for user stupidy, you can always take functionality away in return for security.
For example, you won't see much malware on a PS3 Slim because nobody has even gotten a crack or modchip going for it.
However, it won't do much for a user other than play games on it (The Slim has no hypervisor to allow Linux to run.
)  On the other scale, if you sit an uneducated user at a Linux root prompt, they have the best footshooting tools in existance.
Similar with a ChromeOS appliance.
It won't have malware issues, but the tradeoff will be not having local apps or much local storage.So, Microsoft may not be perfect, but Windows 7 is light years ahead of XP in security.
With ASLR, full disk encryption, encrypted backup volumes, and downloadable antivirus, it can be argued that it is a generation ahead of OS X when it comes to security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30376536</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259593320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hell no, that can't be right. The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose. No more, no less -- with emphasis on the "no more" bit.</p></div></blockquote><p>1. Who decides what an inalienable right is?<br>2. Who decides the size or purpose of government if not the 51\%?<br>3. A government being as small as possible is just your opinion. Who made you dictator?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell no , that ca n't be right .
The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen 's inalienable rights ; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose .
No more , no less -- with emphasis on the " no more " bit.1 .
Who decides what an inalienable right is ? 2 .
Who decides the size or purpose of government if not the 51 \ % ? 3 .
A government being as small as possible is just your opinion .
Who made you dictator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell no, that can't be right.
The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose.
No more, no less -- with emphasis on the "no more" bit.1.
Who decides what an inalienable right is?2.
Who decides the size or purpose of government if not the 51\%?3.
A government being as small as possible is just your opinion.
Who made you dictator?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371730</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>ojintoad</author>
	<datestamp>1260273720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Don't you think it is up to the people of the nation in question who set up said policy to decide if it is the role of their government or not?<br>
(If you are a citizen of Germany then there is nothing inconsistent about your 1 point.)<br>
2. What if as a solution to the Malware problem they offer advice like "Have you tried Linux?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Do n't you think it is up to the people of the nation in question who set up said policy to decide if it is the role of their government or not ?
( If you are a citizen of Germany then there is nothing inconsistent about your 1 point .
) 2 .
What if as a solution to the Malware problem they offer advice like " Have you tried Linux ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Don't you think it is up to the people of the nation in question who set up said policy to decide if it is the role of their government or not?
(If you are a citizen of Germany then there is nothing inconsistent about your 1 point.
)
2.
What if as a solution to the Malware problem they offer advice like "Have you tried Linux?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370998</id>
	<title>Government provides product specific help for free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see how government specific help around one specific product from one specific company, is not a bailout.  They are reducing Microsoft support costs, pure and simple...</p><p>How would it fly if the government were spending money to pay for gas for one specific brand of car?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how government specific help around one specific product from one specific company , is not a bailout .
They are reducing Microsoft support costs , pure and simple...How would it fly if the government were spending money to pay for gas for one specific brand of car ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how government specific help around one specific product from one specific company, is not a bailout.
They are reducing Microsoft support costs, pure and simple...How would it fly if the government were spending money to pay for gas for one specific brand of car?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372124</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1260276000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights</p></div></blockquote><p>In theory, yes.</p><p>But in practice, the majority define what "inalienable" means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen 's inalienable rightsIn theory , yes.But in practice , the majority define what " inalienable " means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rightsIn theory, yes.But in practice, the majority define what "inalienable" means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373892</id>
	<title>Re:So AAA is a bailout for Ford Motors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260290700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those scum want to get as many machines as possible, so only niche diehards or those who want to prove a point bother to infect anything with less than a 40\% market share.</p></div><p>Agree, I've been running dual-boot Vista / Windows 7 with no security whatsoever with no problems - is there anybody else out there doing similar?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Hello? Hello?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those scum want to get as many machines as possible , so only niche diehards or those who want to prove a point bother to infect anything with less than a 40 \ % market share.Agree , I 've been running dual-boot Vista / Windows 7 with no security whatsoever with no problems - is there anybody else out there doing similar ?
... Hello ?
Hello ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those scum want to get as many machines as possible, so only niche diehards or those who want to prove a point bother to infect anything with less than a 40\% market share.Agree, I've been running dual-boot Vista / Windows 7 with no security whatsoever with no problems - is there anybody else out there doing similar?
... Hello?
Hello?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I think this has the effect of being a malware bailout for Microsoft, discouraging them and other software companies from writing better code and giving users little incentives to switch to more secure alternatives.</p></div><p>I have to disagree with that. Malware problem is usually because of user stupidity. Like any other OS, you can run Windows securely if you don't do stupid things.</p><p>The thing is, as we don't care so much about how to properly feed, exercise and clean ponies, normal people don't care so much about computer security. They just want to do their thing. But now they would have a place they know they can seek help from, and who are giving helpful instructions how to not get infected anymore and how to solve their problem. Maybe those hints stick, maybe not, but at least they can get help with the problem (without calling over our fellow slashdotters all the time!)</p><p>But what is an interesting piece in the article (and somewhat worry-some)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Before the plans are implemented, however, a decision needs to be made on what sanctions customers who decline to cooperate with their ISP can be subjected to. According to an eco project manager, quoted by the dpa, "Anyone surfing without proper anti-virus software is endangering other web users, in the same way that a car driver driving with faulty brakes is endangering other road users."</p></div><p>I'm sure Symantec will hurray for that, but I don't want someone push an av software down my throat that I don't even need. Even less on my linux server. I really hope it only means those users who have been identified by the ISP to be sending spam out.</p><p>But the bottom line is, it's not a "bailout" for Microsoft. Malware goes where the users and money are and any kind of better code or secure alternatives cannot go around user stupidity. Linux is mostly secure from malware because the users generally are more geeky than the casual users on Windows and don't just random stuff from the internet. Repositories also help with this, but if Linux ever gained any actual desktop marketshare and casual users, the 3rd party applications/games/whatever that people want would be downloaded from the internet just the same way as on Windows. But any (good) Linux sysadmin knows there been worms in Linux too and remote hacks are commonplace if the system isn't properly secured (and casual users just wont do that).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this has the effect of being a malware bailout for Microsoft , discouraging them and other software companies from writing better code and giving users little incentives to switch to more secure alternatives.I have to disagree with that .
Malware problem is usually because of user stupidity .
Like any other OS , you can run Windows securely if you do n't do stupid things.The thing is , as we do n't care so much about how to properly feed , exercise and clean ponies , normal people do n't care so much about computer security .
They just want to do their thing .
But now they would have a place they know they can seek help from , and who are giving helpful instructions how to not get infected anymore and how to solve their problem .
Maybe those hints stick , maybe not , but at least they can get help with the problem ( without calling over our fellow slashdotters all the time !
) But what is an interesting piece in the article ( and somewhat worry-some ) Before the plans are implemented , however , a decision needs to be made on what sanctions customers who decline to cooperate with their ISP can be subjected to .
According to an eco project manager , quoted by the dpa , " Anyone surfing without proper anti-virus software is endangering other web users , in the same way that a car driver driving with faulty brakes is endangering other road users .
" I 'm sure Symantec will hurray for that , but I do n't want someone push an av software down my throat that I do n't even need .
Even less on my linux server .
I really hope it only means those users who have been identified by the ISP to be sending spam out.But the bottom line is , it 's not a " bailout " for Microsoft .
Malware goes where the users and money are and any kind of better code or secure alternatives can not go around user stupidity .
Linux is mostly secure from malware because the users generally are more geeky than the casual users on Windows and do n't just random stuff from the internet .
Repositories also help with this , but if Linux ever gained any actual desktop marketshare and casual users , the 3rd party applications/games/whatever that people want would be downloaded from the internet just the same way as on Windows .
But any ( good ) Linux sysadmin knows there been worms in Linux too and remote hacks are commonplace if the system is n't properly secured ( and casual users just wont do that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think this has the effect of being a malware bailout for Microsoft, discouraging them and other software companies from writing better code and giving users little incentives to switch to more secure alternatives.I have to disagree with that.
Malware problem is usually because of user stupidity.
Like any other OS, you can run Windows securely if you don't do stupid things.The thing is, as we don't care so much about how to properly feed, exercise and clean ponies, normal people don't care so much about computer security.
They just want to do their thing.
But now they would have a place they know they can seek help from, and who are giving helpful instructions how to not get infected anymore and how to solve their problem.
Maybe those hints stick, maybe not, but at least they can get help with the problem (without calling over our fellow slashdotters all the time!
)But what is an interesting piece in the article (and somewhat worry-some)Before the plans are implemented, however, a decision needs to be made on what sanctions customers who decline to cooperate with their ISP can be subjected to.
According to an eco project manager, quoted by the dpa, "Anyone surfing without proper anti-virus software is endangering other web users, in the same way that a car driver driving with faulty brakes is endangering other road users.
"I'm sure Symantec will hurray for that, but I don't want someone push an av software down my throat that I don't even need.
Even less on my linux server.
I really hope it only means those users who have been identified by the ISP to be sending spam out.But the bottom line is, it's not a "bailout" for Microsoft.
Malware goes where the users and money are and any kind of better code or secure alternatives cannot go around user stupidity.
Linux is mostly secure from malware because the users generally are more geeky than the casual users on Windows and don't just random stuff from the internet.
Repositories also help with this, but if Linux ever gained any actual desktop marketshare and casual users, the 3rd party applications/games/whatever that people want would be downloaded from the internet just the same way as on Windows.
But any (good) Linux sysadmin knows there been worms in Linux too and remote hacks are commonplace if the system isn't properly secured (and casual users just wont do that).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370964</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1260269820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey! Don't knock Windows! I make a lot of money cleaning infections from MS products...</p><p>On the other hand, removing infections from Windows is kinda like disinfecting a toilet. It just won't last... The more interesting thing is that the German gov. is taking employment away from pc repairers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey !
Do n't knock Windows !
I make a lot of money cleaning infections from MS products...On the other hand , removing infections from Windows is kinda like disinfecting a toilet .
It just wo n't last... The more interesting thing is that the German gov .
is taking employment away from pc repairers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey!
Don't knock Windows!
I make a lot of money cleaning infections from MS products...On the other hand, removing infections from Windows is kinda like disinfecting a toilet.
It just won't last... The more interesting thing is that the German gov.
is taking employment away from pc repairers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370754</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1260268920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>as we don't care so much about how to properly feed, exercise and clean ponies</p></div><p>On the contrary, I've had an inexplicable interest, some might even say obsession, with ponies since April 1, 2006.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>as we do n't care so much about how to properly feed , exercise and clean poniesOn the contrary , I 've had an inexplicable interest , some might even say obsession , with ponies since April 1 , 2006 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as we don't care so much about how to properly feed, exercise and clean poniesOn the contrary, I've had an inexplicable interest, some might even say obsession, with ponies since April 1, 2006.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371640</id>
	<title>Malware</title>
	<author>dnaumov</author>
	<datestamp>1260273180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Malware is not the same thing as viruses. No amount of security in the operating system will save the user from getting a malware infection if he clicks "Yes" to anything. Unless the OS is locked down to the point of not being able to install anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Malware is not the same thing as viruses .
No amount of security in the operating system will save the user from getting a malware infection if he clicks " Yes " to anything .
Unless the OS is locked down to the point of not being able to install anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malware is not the same thing as viruses.
No amount of security in the operating system will save the user from getting a malware infection if he clicks "Yes" to anything.
Unless the OS is locked down to the point of not being able to install anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372330</id>
	<title>sucking off the government teat</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1260277380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how long are we going to put up with this corporate welfare? Bank bailout,subsidies for oil and gas companies, subsides for agribusiness etc. I need money, why can't I get it? I pay more in taxes than any of those scum bags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how long are we going to put up with this corporate welfare ?
Bank bailout,subsidies for oil and gas companies , subsides for agribusiness etc .
I need money , why ca n't I get it ?
I pay more in taxes than any of those scum bags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how long are we going to put up with this corporate welfare?
Bank bailout,subsidies for oil and gas companies, subsides for agribusiness etc.
I need money, why can't I get it?
I pay more in taxes than any of those scum bags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371442</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260272040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what a load of horse shit.

1. completely agree, it is not the role of the government.

2. utter bullshit. The vast majority of malware has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OS or its securty, if anything OSX and linux are far more vulnerable with far less protection from malware, at least windows provides a relatively useless prompt. What deep design flawes in Windows? people like to perpetuate this myth, the reality is the security design of windows is actually pretty good, there is a lot of useless crap in windows and I don't like the OS much but design wise for security it is significantly better than OSX and a little better than linux too, however the vast majority of users behave in a very unsecure fashion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what a load of horse shit .
1. completely agree , it is not the role of the government .
2. utter bullshit .
The vast majority of malware has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OS or its securty , if anything OSX and linux are far more vulnerable with far less protection from malware , at least windows provides a relatively useless prompt .
What deep design flawes in Windows ?
people like to perpetuate this myth , the reality is the security design of windows is actually pretty good , there is a lot of useless crap in windows and I do n't like the OS much but design wise for security it is significantly better than OSX and a little better than linux too , however the vast majority of users behave in a very unsecure fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what a load of horse shit.
1. completely agree, it is not the role of the government.
2. utter bullshit.
The vast majority of malware has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OS or its securty, if anything OSX and linux are far more vulnerable with far less protection from malware, at least windows provides a relatively useless prompt.
What deep design flawes in Windows?
people like to perpetuate this myth, the reality is the security design of windows is actually pretty good, there is a lot of useless crap in windows and I don't like the OS much but design wise for security it is significantly better than OSX and a little better than linux too, however the vast majority of users behave in a very unsecure fashion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371540</id>
	<title>What next</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1260272580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you know it, they'll be making the trains run on time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you know it , they 'll be making the trains run on time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you know it, they'll be making the trains run on time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371054</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260270180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ponies Slashdot was in 2006? Fuck I'm getting old...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ponies Slashdot was in 2006 ?
Fuck I 'm getting old.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ponies Slashdot was in 2006?
Fuck I'm getting old...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373058</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1260282480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Hell no, that can't be right.<br>
&nbsp; The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose. No more, no less</i> </p><p>There are no restrictions on amendments to the American Constitution. No greater formal barrier to repealing the 1st Amendment than the 18th, Prohibition.</p><p><i>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.</i> </p><p>This is surely not - on its face - an argument for small, limited, government.</p><p>"Inalienable Rights" are abstractions drawn from a theory of natural law. It makes for the best in revolutionary rhetoric.</p><p>But, on deeper reflection, Americans have always preferred to "get it in writing."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell no , that ca n't be right .
  The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen 's inalienable rights ; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose .
No more , no less There are no restrictions on amendments to the American Constitution .
No greater formal barrier to repealing the 1st Amendment than the 18th , Prohibition.We the People of the United States , in Order to form a more perfect Union , establish Justice , insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defense , promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America .
This is surely not - on its face - an argument for small , limited , government .
" Inalienable Rights " are abstractions drawn from a theory of natural law .
It makes for the best in revolutionary rhetoric.But , on deeper reflection , Americans have always preferred to " get it in writing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell no, that can't be right.
  The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose.
No more, no less There are no restrictions on amendments to the American Constitution.
No greater formal barrier to repealing the 1st Amendment than the 18th, Prohibition.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This is surely not - on its face - an argument for small, limited, government.
"Inalienable Rights" are abstractions drawn from a theory of natural law.
It makes for the best in revolutionary rhetoric.But, on deeper reflection, Americans have always preferred to "get it in writing.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374856</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1259612340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know one guy who reinstalls Windows every year because his PC gets infected and become unusable, despite AV software. Yet, being an MS apologist, he simply believes the company line that poor MS is only so virus-ridden because everyone picks on it because it's so successful. One year, he called me up, because, after spending a day trying to get everything reinstalled, he couldn't get his network card to work and he needed the driver for that to connect to the internet to get the other drivers. I used my Linux box to download the Windows drivers for him. In a short weekend, he was able surf the internet again with an uninfected PC. Oh wait, actually he called me back to say he was still having problems. His PC was infected again in the course of the first day!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know one guy who reinstalls Windows every year because his PC gets infected and become unusable , despite AV software .
Yet , being an MS apologist , he simply believes the company line that poor MS is only so virus-ridden because everyone picks on it because it 's so successful .
One year , he called me up , because , after spending a day trying to get everything reinstalled , he could n't get his network card to work and he needed the driver for that to connect to the internet to get the other drivers .
I used my Linux box to download the Windows drivers for him .
In a short weekend , he was able surf the internet again with an uninfected PC .
Oh wait , actually he called me back to say he was still having problems .
His PC was infected again in the course of the first day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know one guy who reinstalls Windows every year because his PC gets infected and become unusable, despite AV software.
Yet, being an MS apologist, he simply believes the company line that poor MS is only so virus-ridden because everyone picks on it because it's so successful.
One year, he called me up, because, after spending a day trying to get everything reinstalled, he couldn't get his network card to work and he needed the driver for that to connect to the internet to get the other drivers.
I used my Linux box to download the Windows drivers for him.
In a short weekend, he was able surf the internet again with an uninfected PC.
Oh wait, actually he called me back to say he was still having problems.
His PC was infected again in the course of the first day!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371994</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Foredecker</author>
	<datestamp>1260275220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What deep design flaws are you referring to? This isnt a rhetorical
question. Id like to know what you mean.</p><p>I suspect things you are considering a design flaw:</p><ol>
<li>Were true for XP and is not true of Win7 (and probably vista).</li><li>Are not windows specific things but general OS things.</li><li>Are much more subjectively a design flaw than objectively one.</li></ol><p>Note, I completely agree that that in absolute terms, Windows systems are the
most infected. </p><p>But, that doesnt mean there is proof in the pudding. I
assert that OSX and Linux are not any more secure, or less secure than Windows7.
Two things play first order roles with respect to security</p><ol>
<li>The behavior of the user. If the user does stupid things, bad
things happen.</li><li>The surface are of the OS footprint. Windows has a HUGE foot
print: many hundreds of millions of actively running systems. </li></ol><p>Malware developers are going to focus on exploiting large numbers of users who
behave foolishly, on the largest install base of systems.</p><p>Now, I completely agree that Windows can improve with respect to. security (and other
areas of course). But in the grand scheme of things, its really
very secure. </p><p>I argue that if Linux became as popular as windows that it would face
security problems at a similar scale. </p><p>What is happening with the iPhone and malware is anecdotal evidence of this. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What deep design flaws are you referring to ?
This isnt a rhetorical question .
Id like to know what you mean.I suspect things you are considering a design flaw : Were true for XP and is not true of Win7 ( and probably vista ) .Are not windows specific things but general OS things.Are much more subjectively a design flaw than objectively one.Note , I completely agree that that in absolute terms , Windows systems are the most infected .
But , that doesnt mean there is proof in the pudding .
I assert that OSX and Linux are not any more secure , or less secure than Windows7 .
Two things play first order roles with respect to security The behavior of the user .
If the user does stupid things , bad things happen.The surface are of the OS footprint .
Windows has a HUGE foot print : many hundreds of millions of actively running systems .
Malware developers are going to focus on exploiting large numbers of users who behave foolishly , on the largest install base of systems.Now , I completely agree that Windows can improve with respect to .
security ( and other areas of course ) .
But in the grand scheme of things , its really very secure .
I argue that if Linux became as popular as windows that it would face security problems at a similar scale .
What is happening with the iPhone and malware is anecdotal evidence of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What deep design flaws are you referring to?
This isnt a rhetorical
question.
Id like to know what you mean.I suspect things you are considering a design flaw:
Were true for XP and is not true of Win7 (and probably vista).Are not windows specific things but general OS things.Are much more subjectively a design flaw than objectively one.Note, I completely agree that that in absolute terms, Windows systems are the
most infected.
But, that doesnt mean there is proof in the pudding.
I
assert that OSX and Linux are not any more secure, or less secure than Windows7.
Two things play first order roles with respect to security
The behavior of the user.
If the user does stupid things, bad
things happen.The surface are of the OS footprint.
Windows has a HUGE foot
print: many hundreds of millions of actively running systems.
Malware developers are going to focus on exploiting large numbers of users who
behave foolishly, on the largest install base of systems.Now, I completely agree that Windows can improve with respect to.
security (and other
areas of course).
But in the grand scheme of things, its really
very secure.
I argue that if Linux became as popular as windows that it would face
security problems at a similar scale.
What is happening with the iPhone and malware is anecdotal evidence of this. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373838</id>
	<title>My own bailout</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1260290160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll provide my own bailout to the world and seed ubuntu-9.10-desktop-amd64.iso.torrent a bit longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll provide my own bailout to the world and seed ubuntu-9.10-desktop-amd64.iso.torrent a bit longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll provide my own bailout to the world and seed ubuntu-9.10-desktop-amd64.iso.torrent a bit longer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372032</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1260275460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you don't even need UAC to bypass in windows because 99\% of the time, space programs use windows XP not vista. Nice try. Oh, and the fact that you can make linux a hell of a lot more secure than windows? yeah, fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you do n't even need UAC to bypass in windows because 99 \ % of the time , space programs use windows XP not vista .
Nice try .
Oh , and the fact that you can make linux a hell of a lot more secure than windows ?
yeah , fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you don't even need UAC to bypass in windows because 99\% of the time, space programs use windows XP not vista.
Nice try.
Oh, and the fact that you can make linux a hell of a lot more secure than windows?
yeah, fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373814</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260289800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the fact is that Windows has the most infections.  The proof is in the pudding!  Yes, user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself! </p></div><p>Um, I'm not one to just blindly buy Windows products, but maybe you should put a little bit more REASON into your posts.</p><p>You offer absolutely zero evidence for your claims, and to quote an overused slashdot meme, correlation does not prove causation.</p><p>Because "Windows has the most infections" (ignoring the differences in user bases and thus profit involved in developing an infection), it therefore has the most flaws?</p><p>Windows probably has more users click on "Free Xbox 360" banner adds every DAY than there are Linux boxes in the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the fact is that Windows has the most infections .
The proof is in the pudding !
Yes , user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself !
Um , I 'm not one to just blindly buy Windows products , but maybe you should put a little bit more REASON into your posts.You offer absolutely zero evidence for your claims , and to quote an overused slashdot meme , correlation does not prove causation.Because " Windows has the most infections " ( ignoring the differences in user bases and thus profit involved in developing an infection ) , it therefore has the most flaws ? Windows probably has more users click on " Free Xbox 360 " banner adds every DAY than there are Linux boxes in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the fact is that Windows has the most infections.
The proof is in the pudding!
Yes, user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself!
Um, I'm not one to just blindly buy Windows products, but maybe you should put a little bit more REASON into your posts.You offer absolutely zero evidence for your claims, and to quote an overused slashdot meme, correlation does not prove causation.Because "Windows has the most infections" (ignoring the differences in user bases and thus profit involved in developing an infection), it therefore has the most flaws?Windows probably has more users click on "Free Xbox 360" banner adds every DAY than there are Linux boxes in the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371464</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260272160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself! </p></div><p>It's close to 2010, I wish people would stop saying stuff like that. The problem isn't "deep design flaws in Windows", the problem is sloppy coding, buffer overflows etc. Issues that exist in 99\% of consumer softwares out there. Unfortunately, there are no easy and cost-effective ways of getting rid these problems, coders around the world are getting better at dealing with them, and the tools are also getting better but on the short/medium terms, it is utterly futile and naive to believe the situation can be easily corrected.</p><p>Saying that it's all Microsoft fault is a good way to play the blame game, but it doesn't address the problem at all. It's like saying that the poor are responsible for being poor - in many cases this may be true, but saying this won't fix the issue of poverty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself !
It 's close to 2010 , I wish people would stop saying stuff like that .
The problem is n't " deep design flaws in Windows " , the problem is sloppy coding , buffer overflows etc .
Issues that exist in 99 \ % of consumer softwares out there .
Unfortunately , there are no easy and cost-effective ways of getting rid these problems , coders around the world are getting better at dealing with them , and the tools are also getting better but on the short/medium terms , it is utterly futile and naive to believe the situation can be easily corrected.Saying that it 's all Microsoft fault is a good way to play the blame game , but it does n't address the problem at all .
It 's like saying that the poor are responsible for being poor - in many cases this may be true , but saying this wo n't fix the issue of poverty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself!
It's close to 2010, I wish people would stop saying stuff like that.
The problem isn't "deep design flaws in Windows", the problem is sloppy coding, buffer overflows etc.
Issues that exist in 99\% of consumer softwares out there.
Unfortunately, there are no easy and cost-effective ways of getting rid these problems, coders around the world are getting better at dealing with them, and the tools are also getting better but on the short/medium terms, it is utterly futile and naive to believe the situation can be easily corrected.Saying that it's all Microsoft fault is a good way to play the blame game, but it doesn't address the problem at all.
It's like saying that the poor are responsible for being poor - in many cases this may be true, but saying this won't fix the issue of poverty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1260269040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  This isn't the role of government.<br>2.  No matter how much the apologists bray, the fact is that Windows has the most infections.  The proof is in the pudding!  Yes, user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself!  Will the infections ever go toward zero even with the best designs but dumbest users?  No.  But it sure doesn't excuse it being in the other extreme for Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
This is n't the role of government.2 .
No matter how much the apologists bray , the fact is that Windows has the most infections .
The proof is in the pudding !
Yes , user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself !
Will the infections ever go toward zero even with the best designs but dumbest users ?
No. But it sure does n't excuse it being in the other extreme for Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
This isn't the role of government.2.
No matter how much the apologists bray, the fact is that Windows has the most infections.
The proof is in the pudding!
Yes, user stupidity contributes to that... but it ignores deep design flaws in Windows itself!
Will the infections ever go toward zero even with the best designs but dumbest users?
No.  But it sure doesn't excuse it being in the other extreme for Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370786</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>CaseCrash</author>
	<datestamp>1260269040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for pointing out something actually interesting from the article and relevant to us<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'ers<br> <br>
As it is, the summary reads "A government decided to do something to help their less computer-savvy citizens. Here's my rant against microsoft with no bearing on reality. Please go to my blog."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for pointing out something actually interesting from the article and relevant to us / .
'ers As it is , the summary reads " A government decided to do something to help their less computer-savvy citizens .
Here 's my rant against microsoft with no bearing on reality .
Please go to my blog .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for pointing out something actually interesting from the article and relevant to us /.
'ers 
As it is, the summary reads "A government decided to do something to help their less computer-savvy citizens.
Here's my rant against microsoft with no bearing on reality.
Please go to my blog.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371166</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260270660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps so, but how many people let UAC run without considering what it is? You are far more likely to have a keylogger running on Windows than on Linux.<br>UAC does not stop most malware, anyway, as shown here: http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable-8-10-viruses/ and here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=175</p><p>Sudo, on the otherhand, is a far more secure solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps so , but how many people let UAC run without considering what it is ?
You are far more likely to have a keylogger running on Windows than on Linux.UAC does not stop most malware , anyway , as shown here : http : //www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable-8-10-viruses/ and here : http : //blogs.zdnet.com/security/ ? p = 175Sudo , on the otherhand , is a far more secure solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps so, but how many people let UAC run without considering what it is?
You are far more likely to have a keylogger running on Windows than on Linux.UAC does not stop most malware, anyway, as shown here: http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable-8-10-viruses/ and here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=175Sudo, on the otherhand, is a far more secure solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371482</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1260272220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best.  April Fools Page.  Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best .
April Fools Page .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best.
April Fools Page.
Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371042</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>HaZardman27</author>
	<datestamp>1260270120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing is, as we don't care so much about how to properly feed, exercise and clean ponies, normal people don't care so much about computer security. They just want to do their thing.</p></div><p>So... are you suggesting that you just want to.... "do your thing" with a pony?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , as we do n't care so much about how to properly feed , exercise and clean ponies , normal people do n't care so much about computer security .
They just want to do their thing.So... are you suggesting that you just want to.... " do your thing " with a pony ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, as we don't care so much about how to properly feed, exercise and clean ponies, normal people don't care so much about computer security.
They just want to do their thing.So... are you suggesting that you just want to.... "do your thing" with a pony?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370794</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The thing is, as we don't care so much about how to properly feed, exercise and clean ponies, normal people don't care so much about computer security.</p></div></blockquote><p>If I had a pony, I'd learn how to feed, exercise and clean it properly (or at the very least, hand over the reins of responsibility to someone who knew). Or to be more precise, if I had a pony that I told my bank details to, I'd learn how to stop it talking to strangers I didn't want it talking to. It boggles my mind that people can be so reckless with their possessions and even financial security when learning is free. </p><p>Sorry for the o/t.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , as we do n't care so much about how to properly feed , exercise and clean ponies , normal people do n't care so much about computer security.If I had a pony , I 'd learn how to feed , exercise and clean it properly ( or at the very least , hand over the reins of responsibility to someone who knew ) .
Or to be more precise , if I had a pony that I told my bank details to , I 'd learn how to stop it talking to strangers I did n't want it talking to .
It boggles my mind that people can be so reckless with their possessions and even financial security when learning is free .
Sorry for the o/t .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, as we don't care so much about how to properly feed, exercise and clean ponies, normal people don't care so much about computer security.If I had a pony, I'd learn how to feed, exercise and clean it properly (or at the very least, hand over the reins of responsibility to someone who knew).
Or to be more precise, if I had a pony that I told my bank details to, I'd learn how to stop it talking to strangers I didn't want it talking to.
It boggles my mind that people can be so reckless with their possessions and even financial security when learning is free.
Sorry for the o/t.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373524</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1260286620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be. No more, and no less.</i></p><p>Not quite.  If the citizens make decisions that make government undemocratic, then their decision is logically not part of the democratic process anymore (since the democratic process has ceased at that point).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be .
No more , and no less.Not quite .
If the citizens make decisions that make government undemocratic , then their decision is logically not part of the democratic process anymore ( since the democratic process has ceased at that point ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be.
No more, and no less.Not quite.
If the citizens make decisions that make government undemocratic, then their decision is logically not part of the democratic process anymore (since the democratic process has ceased at that point).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370844</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I think this has the effect of being a malware bailout for Microsoft, discouraging them and other software companies from writing better code and giving users little incentives to switch to more secure alternatives.</p></div><p>Does he also think that hospitals treating the sick discourage people from taking steps to stay healthy?</p><p>If people do indeed get help from this it will be money well spent. Period.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this has the effect of being a malware bailout for Microsoft , discouraging them and other software companies from writing better code and giving users little incentives to switch to more secure alternatives.Does he also think that hospitals treating the sick discourage people from taking steps to stay healthy ? If people do indeed get help from this it will be money well spent .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think this has the effect of being a malware bailout for Microsoft, discouraging them and other software companies from writing better code and giving users little incentives to switch to more secure alternatives.Does he also think that hospitals treating the sick discourage people from taking steps to stay healthy?If people do indeed get help from this it will be money well spent.
Period.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374810</id>
	<title>An alternative mission for government</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1259611680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose. No more, no less</p></div><p>I propose a different mission for government: in economist-lingo, to maximize social welfare (that is, the sum of how happy the population is).</p><p>And of course, the population <em>should</em> value freedom of {speech,assembly,press,etc.} very highly.</p><p><em>But</em>---pregnant pause---there is such a thing as a market failure, and I think it makes good sense for the government to step in and make regulations that makes the market more competitive.</p><p>Observe that the societal material benefit of a free market comes about not because the market is free but because it's competitive.</p><p>If you're free to enter a market where you'll most certainly be crushed by the incumbent monopoly, what does that freedom really buy the society?  But if the monopoly is prevented from using its monopoly status to crush you and has to compete reasonably fairly with you, you might have a shot at getting your better/cheaper product out to consumers.</p><p>If you're an American, you'll laugh at "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."  I don't.  I know there's something shady going on, in particular with travel funds for the EU which the MEPs aren't held much accountable for [long story, but the point is if you-an-MEP travel not-extremely-extravagantly, you can pocket a large wad of my tax money at the end of the year.  Some politicians do.].  But I also believe politicians (from time to time) genuinely want to do good for the people and the nation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen 's inalienable rights ; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose .
No more , no lessI propose a different mission for government : in economist-lingo , to maximize social welfare ( that is , the sum of how happy the population is ) .And of course , the population should value freedom of { speech,assembly,press,etc .
} very highly.But---pregnant pause---there is such a thing as a market failure , and I think it makes good sense for the government to step in and make regulations that makes the market more competitive.Observe that the societal material benefit of a free market comes about not because the market is free but because it 's competitive.If you 're free to enter a market where you 'll most certainly be crushed by the incumbent monopoly , what does that freedom really buy the society ?
But if the monopoly is prevented from using its monopoly status to crush you and has to compete reasonably fairly with you , you might have a shot at getting your better/cheaper product out to consumers.If you 're an American , you 'll laugh at " I 'm from the government , and I 'm here to help you .
" I do n't .
I know there 's something shady going on , in particular with travel funds for the EU which the MEPs are n't held much accountable for [ long story , but the point is if you-an-MEP travel not-extremely-extravagantly , you can pocket a large wad of my tax money at the end of the year .
Some politicians do. ] .
But I also believe politicians ( from time to time ) genuinely want to do good for the people and the nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose.
No more, no lessI propose a different mission for government: in economist-lingo, to maximize social welfare (that is, the sum of how happy the population is).And of course, the population should value freedom of {speech,assembly,press,etc.
} very highly.But---pregnant pause---there is such a thing as a market failure, and I think it makes good sense for the government to step in and make regulations that makes the market more competitive.Observe that the societal material benefit of a free market comes about not because the market is free but because it's competitive.If you're free to enter a market where you'll most certainly be crushed by the incumbent monopoly, what does that freedom really buy the society?
But if the monopoly is prevented from using its monopoly status to crush you and has to compete reasonably fairly with you, you might have a shot at getting your better/cheaper product out to consumers.If you're an American, you'll laugh at "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.
"  I don't.
I know there's something shady going on, in particular with travel funds for the EU which the MEPs aren't held much accountable for [long story, but the point is if you-an-MEP travel not-extremely-extravagantly, you can pocket a large wad of my tax money at the end of the year.
Some politicians do.].
But I also believe politicians (from time to time) genuinely want to do good for the people and the nation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374584</id>
	<title>Re:Windows is vulnerable because that is profitabl</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1260300000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>People at the call center could educate callers that the apparent reason Microsoft products have so many vulnerabilities is that Microsoft top managers don't allow Microsoft programmers to finish their work. Unfinished, vulnerable, buggy, limited software makes more money when a company has a virtual monopoly because then the company can sell "upgrades" and upgrades and upgrades and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</i>
</p><p>What non-trivial software packages are you thinking of that *aren't* patched, upgraded and replaced over time ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People at the call center could educate callers that the apparent reason Microsoft products have so many vulnerabilities is that Microsoft top managers do n't allow Microsoft programmers to finish their work .
Unfinished , vulnerable , buggy , limited software makes more money when a company has a virtual monopoly because then the company can sell " upgrades " and upgrades and upgrades and ... . What non-trivial software packages are you thinking of that * are n't * patched , upgraded and replaced over time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> People at the call center could educate callers that the apparent reason Microsoft products have so many vulnerabilities is that Microsoft top managers don't allow Microsoft programmers to finish their work.
Unfinished, vulnerable, buggy, limited software makes more money when a company has a virtual monopoly because then the company can sell "upgrades" and upgrades and upgrades and ....
What non-trivial software packages are you thinking of that *aren't* patched, upgraded and replaced over time ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372142</id>
	<title>Re:So AAA is a bailout for Ford Motors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260276120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The security by obscurity bullshit constantly spewed as a counter argument whenever someone claims OSX or Linux is more secure is tiring. Security through obscurity doesn't work, and the argument falls flat on its face when you look at the rate of exploit of *NIX servers vs. Windows servers or Apache vs. IIS, the former being more widespread in both cases, but having fewer exploits compared to the latter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The security by obscurity bullshit constantly spewed as a counter argument whenever someone claims OSX or Linux is more secure is tiring .
Security through obscurity does n't work , and the argument falls flat on its face when you look at the rate of exploit of * NIX servers vs. Windows servers or Apache vs. IIS , the former being more widespread in both cases , but having fewer exploits compared to the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The security by obscurity bullshit constantly spewed as a counter argument whenever someone claims OSX or Linux is more secure is tiring.
Security through obscurity doesn't work, and the argument falls flat on its face when you look at the rate of exploit of *NIX servers vs. Windows servers or Apache vs. IIS, the former being more widespread in both cases, but having fewer exploits compared to the latter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30386224</id>
	<title>Re:So AAA is a bailout for Ford Motors?</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1260442800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sorry, but helping the clueless or unfortunate users from something that wasn't created, distributed, or sanctioned by Microsoft isn't a Microsoft Bailout even if the users are running MS Windows.</i></p><p>But it was created by Microsoft: Microsoft is selling software with inadequate security.  And Microsoft is responsible even if the security problems are due to their users being "clueless": if they sell to clueless users, they have to create software that their users can use without getting into trouble.  That's true for other products, and it should be true for Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but helping the clueless or unfortunate users from something that was n't created , distributed , or sanctioned by Microsoft is n't a Microsoft Bailout even if the users are running MS Windows.But it was created by Microsoft : Microsoft is selling software with inadequate security .
And Microsoft is responsible even if the security problems are due to their users being " clueless " : if they sell to clueless users , they have to create software that their users can use without getting into trouble .
That 's true for other products , and it should be true for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but helping the clueless or unfortunate users from something that wasn't created, distributed, or sanctioned by Microsoft isn't a Microsoft Bailout even if the users are running MS Windows.But it was created by Microsoft: Microsoft is selling software with inadequate security.
And Microsoft is responsible even if the security problems are due to their users being "clueless": if they sell to clueless users, they have to create software that their users can use without getting into trouble.
That's true for other products, and it should be true for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371716</id>
	<title>discouraging them from writing better code?</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1260273660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the contrary, its 'the people' just saying that the vendors are not doing enough! If you think for a minute that people are stupid, well you may be partially right, but they won't be that way forever. Once they realize it doesn't have to be that way (by talking to others that already know the truth) they will demand more before they spend their next dime. Talking to a person not a party to the software itself will certainly educate them. In this day and age the vendors need to make their products a lot better before the masses will just fork over all their money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary , its 'the people ' just saying that the vendors are not doing enough !
If you think for a minute that people are stupid , well you may be partially right , but they wo n't be that way forever .
Once they realize it does n't have to be that way ( by talking to others that already know the truth ) they will demand more before they spend their next dime .
Talking to a person not a party to the software itself will certainly educate them .
In this day and age the vendors need to make their products a lot better before the masses will just fork over all their money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary, its 'the people' just saying that the vendors are not doing enough!
If you think for a minute that people are stupid, well you may be partially right, but they won't be that way forever.
Once they realize it doesn't have to be that way (by talking to others that already know the truth) they will demand more before they spend their next dime.
Talking to a person not a party to the software itself will certainly educate them.
In this day and age the vendors need to make their products a lot better before the masses will just fork over all their money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371678</id>
	<title>Will it actually work?</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1260273420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been cleaning up other people's infected Windows machines for longer than I have wanted to.  It seems like nine times out of ten, the only way to ensure that the computer is clean after it gets infected is to do a complete pave and rebuild of the OS.  That level of complexity isn't something that a tech support person can walk an average user through over the phone.  Forget about backing up the data beforehand, or re-installing the applications after the fact.</p><p>I like the idea.  The way that the article is worded is complete flamebait though.  I think we can all agree that steps need to be taken to reduce the number of malware infected Windows boxes on the internet.  Doing so makes the internet a better place for everyone.  It just seems to me like the Germans are taking on an impossible task.  Once a Windows box is owned, it stays owned.</p><p>On a related tangent, I think things could be better if ISPs institute the equivalent of a "good driver discount".  Give the owners of clean computers a discount on their monthly service fee.  I'm not an economist, but it seems like it would need to be enough of a discount to cover the cost of having a "professional" setup the computer right in the first place.  I see advertisements where I live that claim to clean malware infected computers for $30-50.  So a discount of $5 a month seems about right.  On the other hand, if the discount isn't high enough, then the incentive won't be strong enough to encourage people to keep their computers clean.  At that point maybe the ISPs need a stick, instead of a carrot.  Perhaps throttling the connection, or re-directing to a subset of URLs for how to deal with malware infections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been cleaning up other people 's infected Windows machines for longer than I have wanted to .
It seems like nine times out of ten , the only way to ensure that the computer is clean after it gets infected is to do a complete pave and rebuild of the OS .
That level of complexity is n't something that a tech support person can walk an average user through over the phone .
Forget about backing up the data beforehand , or re-installing the applications after the fact.I like the idea .
The way that the article is worded is complete flamebait though .
I think we can all agree that steps need to be taken to reduce the number of malware infected Windows boxes on the internet .
Doing so makes the internet a better place for everyone .
It just seems to me like the Germans are taking on an impossible task .
Once a Windows box is owned , it stays owned.On a related tangent , I think things could be better if ISPs institute the equivalent of a " good driver discount " .
Give the owners of clean computers a discount on their monthly service fee .
I 'm not an economist , but it seems like it would need to be enough of a discount to cover the cost of having a " professional " setup the computer right in the first place .
I see advertisements where I live that claim to clean malware infected computers for $ 30-50 .
So a discount of $ 5 a month seems about right .
On the other hand , if the discount is n't high enough , then the incentive wo n't be strong enough to encourage people to keep their computers clean .
At that point maybe the ISPs need a stick , instead of a carrot .
Perhaps throttling the connection , or re-directing to a subset of URLs for how to deal with malware infections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been cleaning up other people's infected Windows machines for longer than I have wanted to.
It seems like nine times out of ten, the only way to ensure that the computer is clean after it gets infected is to do a complete pave and rebuild of the OS.
That level of complexity isn't something that a tech support person can walk an average user through over the phone.
Forget about backing up the data beforehand, or re-installing the applications after the fact.I like the idea.
The way that the article is worded is complete flamebait though.
I think we can all agree that steps need to be taken to reduce the number of malware infected Windows boxes on the internet.
Doing so makes the internet a better place for everyone.
It just seems to me like the Germans are taking on an impossible task.
Once a Windows box is owned, it stays owned.On a related tangent, I think things could be better if ISPs institute the equivalent of a "good driver discount".
Give the owners of clean computers a discount on their monthly service fee.
I'm not an economist, but it seems like it would need to be enough of a discount to cover the cost of having a "professional" setup the computer right in the first place.
I see advertisements where I live that claim to clean malware infected computers for $30-50.
So a discount of $5 a month seems about right.
On the other hand, if the discount isn't high enough, then the incentive won't be strong enough to encourage people to keep their computers clean.
At that point maybe the ISPs need a stick, instead of a carrot.
Perhaps throttling the connection, or re-directing to a subset of URLs for how to deal with malware infections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371406</id>
	<title>So AAA is a bailout for Ford Motors?</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1260271920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but helping the clueless or unfortunate users from something that wasn't created, distributed, or sanctioned by Microsoft isn't a Microsoft Bailout even if the users are running MS Windows.<br><br>If Macs were the big dog in the OS world, would you then be calling it an Apple Bailout?<br><br>By the way, don't buy into the apple myths. They have malware and bugs aplenty, they just don't have enough population density to encourage easy transmittal, or even be a tempting target for malware creators. Those scum want to get as many machines as possible, so only niche diehards or those who want to prove a point bother to infect anything with less than a 40\% market share. Guess what that means...  yeah, that's right, they go after Windows.  If you flip-flop the percentages, you'll see a total shift in what they target. And that's not guesswork or rhetoric.<br><br>Personally I know of many reasons to complain about Microsoft, and Apple, and the Linux community. None are perfect, and all have nuts, fanatics, and total wackjobs. Pick your poison and learn how to use it safely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but helping the clueless or unfortunate users from something that was n't created , distributed , or sanctioned by Microsoft is n't a Microsoft Bailout even if the users are running MS Windows.If Macs were the big dog in the OS world , would you then be calling it an Apple Bailout ? By the way , do n't buy into the apple myths .
They have malware and bugs aplenty , they just do n't have enough population density to encourage easy transmittal , or even be a tempting target for malware creators .
Those scum want to get as many machines as possible , so only niche diehards or those who want to prove a point bother to infect anything with less than a 40 \ % market share .
Guess what that means... yeah , that 's right , they go after Windows .
If you flip-flop the percentages , you 'll see a total shift in what they target .
And that 's not guesswork or rhetoric.Personally I know of many reasons to complain about Microsoft , and Apple , and the Linux community .
None are perfect , and all have nuts , fanatics , and total wackjobs .
Pick your poison and learn how to use it safely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but helping the clueless or unfortunate users from something that wasn't created, distributed, or sanctioned by Microsoft isn't a Microsoft Bailout even if the users are running MS Windows.If Macs were the big dog in the OS world, would you then be calling it an Apple Bailout?By the way, don't buy into the apple myths.
They have malware and bugs aplenty, they just don't have enough population density to encourage easy transmittal, or even be a tempting target for malware creators.
Those scum want to get as many machines as possible, so only niche diehards or those who want to prove a point bother to infect anything with less than a 40\% market share.
Guess what that means...  yeah, that's right, they go after Windows.
If you flip-flop the percentages, you'll see a total shift in what they target.
And that's not guesswork or rhetoric.Personally I know of many reasons to complain about Microsoft, and Apple, and the Linux community.
None are perfect, and all have nuts, fanatics, and total wackjobs.
Pick your poison and learn how to use it safely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372840</id>
	<title>Okay then...</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1260280800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay then - I'll start selling cars (car analogy FTW!)... I don't know anything about cars, but OTOH Microsoft doesn't know shit about Operating Systems, so aparently that's okay... I'll just sell cardboard cutouts and my government will pay for the fixes...<br> <br>

PROFIT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay then - I 'll start selling cars ( car analogy FTW ! ) .. .
I do n't know anything about cars , but OTOH Microsoft does n't know shit about Operating Systems , so aparently that 's okay... I 'll just sell cardboard cutouts and my government will pay for the fixes.. . PROFIT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay then - I'll start selling cars (car analogy FTW!)...
I don't know anything about cars, but OTOH Microsoft doesn't know shit about Operating Systems, so aparently that's okay... I'll just sell cardboard cutouts and my government will pay for the fixes... 

PROFIT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30377522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30376536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30386224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2011251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2011251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30386224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2011251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2011251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30370922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371166
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371318
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371904
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30372124
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30373058
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30374810
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30377522
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30376536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2011251.30371042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
