<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_14_0111204</id>
	<title>Office 2003 Bug Locks Owners Out</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260818400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.eff.org/support" rel="nofollow">I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property</a> writes <i>"A Microsoft Office 2003 bug is <a href="http://technologizer.com/2009/12/11/office-2003-rights-management-bug-locks-up-files/">locking people out of their own files</a>, specifically those protected with Microsoft's Rights Management Service. Microsoft has a <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/office\_sustained\_engineering/archive/2009/12/12/cannot-open-office-2003-documents-protected-with-rms-update.aspx">TechNet bulletin</a> on the issue with a fix. It looks like they screwed up and let a certificate expire. There's no information on when the replacement certificate will expire, though, or what will happen when it does."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Do n't Believe in Imaginary Property writes " A Microsoft Office 2003 bug is locking people out of their own files , specifically those protected with Microsoft 's Rights Management Service .
Microsoft has a TechNet bulletin on the issue with a fix .
It looks like they screwed up and let a certificate expire .
There 's no information on when the replacement certificate will expire , though , or what will happen when it does .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A Microsoft Office 2003 bug is locking people out of their own files, specifically those protected with Microsoft's Rights Management Service.
Microsoft has a TechNet bulletin on the issue with a fix.
It looks like they screwed up and let a certificate expire.
There's no information on when the replacement certificate will expire, though, or what will happen when it does.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428742</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Up Or Forced Upgrade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260823560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Why did you put "works" in quotes?  Office 2003 still does, in fact, work.  It works just fine.

</p><p>
A lot of people are still using Office 2003 because the number of new features that impact daily usage seems to shrink with every new release.  Why upgrade when the version you have does everything you need it to, and the new version doesn't do anything you wish it did?

</p><p>
There's always <i>someone</i> who will benefit from [insert new feature here].  But for the rest of us, Office has suffered from a paucity of innovation since 1995.  If anything, things have gotten worse -- e.g. they keep trying to make Microsoft Word "smart," but the result is a program that's too smart to be obedient and too stupid to do what you actually want it to do.

</p><p>
The writing's on the wall for Office.  If the folks in Redmond don't figure out something reeeal soon, Office is toast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did you put " works " in quotes ?
Office 2003 still does , in fact , work .
It works just fine .
A lot of people are still using Office 2003 because the number of new features that impact daily usage seems to shrink with every new release .
Why upgrade when the version you have does everything you need it to , and the new version does n't do anything you wish it did ?
There 's always someone who will benefit from [ insert new feature here ] .
But for the rest of us , Office has suffered from a paucity of innovation since 1995 .
If anything , things have gotten worse -- e.g .
they keep trying to make Microsoft Word " smart , " but the result is a program that 's too smart to be obedient and too stupid to do what you actually want it to do .
The writing 's on the wall for Office .
If the folks in Redmond do n't figure out something reeeal soon , Office is toast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Why did you put "works" in quotes?
Office 2003 still does, in fact, work.
It works just fine.
A lot of people are still using Office 2003 because the number of new features that impact daily usage seems to shrink with every new release.
Why upgrade when the version you have does everything you need it to, and the new version doesn't do anything you wish it did?
There's always someone who will benefit from [insert new feature here].
But for the rest of us, Office has suffered from a paucity of innovation since 1995.
If anything, things have gotten worse -- e.g.
they keep trying to make Microsoft Word "smart," but the result is a program that's too smart to be obedient and too stupid to do what you actually want it to do.
The writing's on the wall for Office.
If the folks in Redmond don't figure out something reeeal soon, Office is toast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686</id>
	<title>amazing...</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1260822660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting that amount of trust in a third party that has the power to lock you out of your own files...  It boggles the mind as to why that is acceptable in anything of importance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting that amount of trust in a third party that has the power to lock you out of your own files... It boggles the mind as to why that is acceptable in anything of importance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting that amount of trust in a third party that has the power to lock you out of your own files...  It boggles the mind as to why that is acceptable in anything of importance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429460</id>
	<title>Re:Design Choices</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1260791640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because people could then use self-signed certs and we know those are only used for evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because people could then use self-signed certs and we know those are only used for evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because people could then use self-signed certs and we know those are only used for evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431890</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Up Or Forced Upgrade?</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1260810120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We were "upgraded" to Outlook 2007, and were previously using 2003. Aside from Outlook 2007 running at half speed versus 2003, it is littered with enormous bugs.</p><p>Here's a sample:<br>BUG #1) OUTLOOK FAILS TO PASTE FROM PREVIEWED ATTACHMENT</p><p>Steps to reproduce BUG:<br>Step ONE: Make sure you have enabled ATTACHMENT PREVIEW in the Trust Center, under Attachment Handling.</p><p>Step TWO: Open a message with a TEXT.TXT type attachment, which will allow you to open in the reading pane with a single click (not double click) of the attachment.</p><p>Step THREE: Select some text in the attachment, copy and now reselect the message (single click) and then click into the SUBJECT field of the message "envelope", and paste.</p><p>Step FOUR: Notice how nothing happens. The item *is* in your clipboard and you can paste anywhere else (another file for example), but not in the subject field. The Subject field allows cutting and pasting from other files and if you were to open the attachment by double-clicking (which would launch notepad), you'd have no problem. Only from the previewed attachment to the subject line is inconsistent, and no reason exists for such a limitation.</p><p>BUG #2) CLOSING MESSAGE WITH ATTACHMENT OPEN RESULTS IN DIALOG BOX</p><p>Steps to reproduce BUG:<br>Step ONE:  Open message with an attachment, then open the attachment</p><p>Step TWO: Close message while keeping attachment open. (to free up some screen real-estate)</p><p>Step THREE: Outlook will display dialog: "The attachments of message have changed, do you want to save changes?"</p><p>But you have NOT changed the attachment AT ALL, you have merely opened it. Furthermore, you have not changed the message, so why should you save changes? Why should you even be prompted about this?</p><p>BUG #3) MESSAGE CONTANING ANOTHER EMAIL AS AN ATTACHMENT WILL ONLY OPEN ONCE</p><p>Steps to reproduce BUG:<br>Step ONE:  Create a new Email message</p><p>Step TWO: Drag another email from your inbox into the new message to have the old message saved into the new message as an attachment.</p><p>Step THREE: Double click on attachment to open it (as if checking to see if the right message was attached).</p><p>Step FOUR: Close attachment, but leave "New" message open. Now double click again on the attachment. Outlook will display the following error message : "The operation failed"</p><p>If you close the new message and re-open it, you will again be able to view the attachment, but only once, after that Outlook will "fail" with the above error. You're forced to reclose and re-open. Lots of wasted time with that one.</p><p>There are plenty more, but I doubt Slashdot will let me post a document this long. BTW: Has anyone tried using the Search function in Outlook 2007 and gotten it to work (i.e., will it let you open anything that has been found?). Mine doesn't.</p><p>Oh, and the hilarity trying to use drag and drop with attachments in emails. Oh, the pain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We were " upgraded " to Outlook 2007 , and were previously using 2003 .
Aside from Outlook 2007 running at half speed versus 2003 , it is littered with enormous bugs.Here 's a sample : BUG # 1 ) OUTLOOK FAILS TO PASTE FROM PREVIEWED ATTACHMENTSteps to reproduce BUG : Step ONE : Make sure you have enabled ATTACHMENT PREVIEW in the Trust Center , under Attachment Handling.Step TWO : Open a message with a TEXT.TXT type attachment , which will allow you to open in the reading pane with a single click ( not double click ) of the attachment.Step THREE : Select some text in the attachment , copy and now reselect the message ( single click ) and then click into the SUBJECT field of the message " envelope " , and paste.Step FOUR : Notice how nothing happens .
The item * is * in your clipboard and you can paste anywhere else ( another file for example ) , but not in the subject field .
The Subject field allows cutting and pasting from other files and if you were to open the attachment by double-clicking ( which would launch notepad ) , you 'd have no problem .
Only from the previewed attachment to the subject line is inconsistent , and no reason exists for such a limitation.BUG # 2 ) CLOSING MESSAGE WITH ATTACHMENT OPEN RESULTS IN DIALOG BOXSteps to reproduce BUG : Step ONE : Open message with an attachment , then open the attachmentStep TWO : Close message while keeping attachment open .
( to free up some screen real-estate ) Step THREE : Outlook will display dialog : " The attachments of message have changed , do you want to save changes ?
" But you have NOT changed the attachment AT ALL , you have merely opened it .
Furthermore , you have not changed the message , so why should you save changes ?
Why should you even be prompted about this ? BUG # 3 ) MESSAGE CONTANING ANOTHER EMAIL AS AN ATTACHMENT WILL ONLY OPEN ONCESteps to reproduce BUG : Step ONE : Create a new Email messageStep TWO : Drag another email from your inbox into the new message to have the old message saved into the new message as an attachment.Step THREE : Double click on attachment to open it ( as if checking to see if the right message was attached ) .Step FOUR : Close attachment , but leave " New " message open .
Now double click again on the attachment .
Outlook will display the following error message : " The operation failed " If you close the new message and re-open it , you will again be able to view the attachment , but only once , after that Outlook will " fail " with the above error .
You 're forced to reclose and re-open .
Lots of wasted time with that one.There are plenty more , but I doubt Slashdot will let me post a document this long .
BTW : Has anyone tried using the Search function in Outlook 2007 and gotten it to work ( i.e. , will it let you open anything that has been found ? ) .
Mine does n't.Oh , and the hilarity trying to use drag and drop with attachments in emails .
Oh , the pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were "upgraded" to Outlook 2007, and were previously using 2003.
Aside from Outlook 2007 running at half speed versus 2003, it is littered with enormous bugs.Here's a sample:BUG #1) OUTLOOK FAILS TO PASTE FROM PREVIEWED ATTACHMENTSteps to reproduce BUG:Step ONE: Make sure you have enabled ATTACHMENT PREVIEW in the Trust Center, under Attachment Handling.Step TWO: Open a message with a TEXT.TXT type attachment, which will allow you to open in the reading pane with a single click (not double click) of the attachment.Step THREE: Select some text in the attachment, copy and now reselect the message (single click) and then click into the SUBJECT field of the message "envelope", and paste.Step FOUR: Notice how nothing happens.
The item *is* in your clipboard and you can paste anywhere else (another file for example), but not in the subject field.
The Subject field allows cutting and pasting from other files and if you were to open the attachment by double-clicking (which would launch notepad), you'd have no problem.
Only from the previewed attachment to the subject line is inconsistent, and no reason exists for such a limitation.BUG #2) CLOSING MESSAGE WITH ATTACHMENT OPEN RESULTS IN DIALOG BOXSteps to reproduce BUG:Step ONE:  Open message with an attachment, then open the attachmentStep TWO: Close message while keeping attachment open.
(to free up some screen real-estate)Step THREE: Outlook will display dialog: "The attachments of message have changed, do you want to save changes?
"But you have NOT changed the attachment AT ALL, you have merely opened it.
Furthermore, you have not changed the message, so why should you save changes?
Why should you even be prompted about this?BUG #3) MESSAGE CONTANING ANOTHER EMAIL AS AN ATTACHMENT WILL ONLY OPEN ONCESteps to reproduce BUG:Step ONE:  Create a new Email messageStep TWO: Drag another email from your inbox into the new message to have the old message saved into the new message as an attachment.Step THREE: Double click on attachment to open it (as if checking to see if the right message was attached).Step FOUR: Close attachment, but leave "New" message open.
Now double click again on the attachment.
Outlook will display the following error message : "The operation failed"If you close the new message and re-open it, you will again be able to view the attachment, but only once, after that Outlook will "fail" with the above error.
You're forced to reclose and re-open.
Lots of wasted time with that one.There are plenty more, but I doubt Slashdot will let me post a document this long.
BTW: Has anyone tried using the Search function in Outlook 2007 and gotten it to work (i.e., will it let you open anything that has been found?).
Mine doesn't.Oh, and the hilarity trying to use drag and drop with attachments in emails.
Oh, the pain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30440210</id>
	<title>Not to disagree</title>
	<author>IBitOBear</author>
	<datestamp>1260810600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the kind of error messages you see from programmers who use exceptions \_poorly\_. I use exceptions well, and in doing so I don't just use the pointlessly empty exception classes. I have a tidy little toolbox with a slelect few exception classes that are normally instanced in a way that includes file and line numbers (for me) and useful text (for the user) at a minimum. Heck, when I compile with a debug macro defined (q.v. -DDEBUG) on a GCC/GlibC based system, my exception constructor saves a whole stack trace created at construction using backtrace().</p><p>Oddly enough, such exceptions are typically thrown in response to "doing error checking within the routine".</p><p>They are also damn handy inside of libraries where, for instance, you want to have a function that returns int and there is no "invalid" value to return (such as -1) because the whole domain of int is a valid value. (as in doing checksums or hash tables and so on).</p><p>The fact of the matter is, many people should not be trusted with power tools, and many people should not be trusted with manual tools, but nobody who thinks either kind of tool should not exist for whatever reason should be trusted with any tools at all.</p><p>You hate exceptions because either (a) you don't know how to use them properly or (b) you have been forced to use the code of someone who doesn't know how to use them properly, and perhaps (c) both of the above.</p><p>The real predicate is whether the condition can be properly handled locally or not. Passing an error return code (q.v. minus-one etc) back through ten layers of function calls is just as information poor a thing to do as throw an empty class as an exception. In fact its \_worse\_ in most cases as you need to make a tangle of logic to turn a callee's -1+errno for out-of-bounds into your local -1+errno for could-not-allocate, into the callers -1 pool-is-full-use-a-malloc-instead. This just multiplies for the full Cartesian Product of all possible error paths including those paths that also then fail.</p><p>Tell me true (presuming you use C/C++ on a posix-like os)...</p><p>Do you always check the return value from snprintf() to make sure that you didn't run out of buffer during conversion? Let me guess, you just choose to use really big buffers...</p><p>Do you wrap every write() in a pointer-increment loop to naturally catch when a write of ten bytes actually only writes 5. Let me guess, you only check for -1, and only on file descriptors that you think are "likely" to error out...</p><p>IMHO people who discard features whole-scale, and cite "hate" as a reason are generally guilty of practicing outside their ability.</p><p>There are plenty of things I "don't do", like I never use pure virtual functions in C++. I feel they serve no useful purpose except to annoy the programmer that comes along after me. (Having had a thread safety problem in a code block where one thread called a virtual function on a object that was being destroyed by another thread, and having the resultant call become a call to that NULL kinda irked me. But I learned my lesson. I put asserts or exceptions in the functions and document them, and document the class as having no useful default implementation. Also I've seen fat interfaces where the first thing a user has to do is stub-out the interface in order to make a single test call; where that lead to an important function ending up containing just "return 0;" all the way to production; which cost us time and money. But I don't "hate" pure virtual functions for finding them pointless and unhelpful.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the kind of error messages you see from programmers who use exceptions \ _poorly \ _ .
I use exceptions well , and in doing so I do n't just use the pointlessly empty exception classes .
I have a tidy little toolbox with a slelect few exception classes that are normally instanced in a way that includes file and line numbers ( for me ) and useful text ( for the user ) at a minimum .
Heck , when I compile with a debug macro defined ( q.v .
-DDEBUG ) on a GCC/GlibC based system , my exception constructor saves a whole stack trace created at construction using backtrace ( ) .Oddly enough , such exceptions are typically thrown in response to " doing error checking within the routine " .They are also damn handy inside of libraries where , for instance , you want to have a function that returns int and there is no " invalid " value to return ( such as -1 ) because the whole domain of int is a valid value .
( as in doing checksums or hash tables and so on ) .The fact of the matter is , many people should not be trusted with power tools , and many people should not be trusted with manual tools , but nobody who thinks either kind of tool should not exist for whatever reason should be trusted with any tools at all.You hate exceptions because either ( a ) you do n't know how to use them properly or ( b ) you have been forced to use the code of someone who does n't know how to use them properly , and perhaps ( c ) both of the above.The real predicate is whether the condition can be properly handled locally or not .
Passing an error return code ( q.v .
minus-one etc ) back through ten layers of function calls is just as information poor a thing to do as throw an empty class as an exception .
In fact its \ _worse \ _ in most cases as you need to make a tangle of logic to turn a callee 's -1 + errno for out-of-bounds into your local -1 + errno for could-not-allocate , into the callers -1 pool-is-full-use-a-malloc-instead .
This just multiplies for the full Cartesian Product of all possible error paths including those paths that also then fail.Tell me true ( presuming you use C/C + + on a posix-like os ) ...Do you always check the return value from snprintf ( ) to make sure that you did n't run out of buffer during conversion ?
Let me guess , you just choose to use really big buffers...Do you wrap every write ( ) in a pointer-increment loop to naturally catch when a write of ten bytes actually only writes 5 .
Let me guess , you only check for -1 , and only on file descriptors that you think are " likely " to error out...IMHO people who discard features whole-scale , and cite " hate " as a reason are generally guilty of practicing outside their ability.There are plenty of things I " do n't do " , like I never use pure virtual functions in C + + .
I feel they serve no useful purpose except to annoy the programmer that comes along after me .
( Having had a thread safety problem in a code block where one thread called a virtual function on a object that was being destroyed by another thread , and having the resultant call become a call to that NULL kinda irked me .
But I learned my lesson .
I put asserts or exceptions in the functions and document them , and document the class as having no useful default implementation .
Also I 've seen fat interfaces where the first thing a user has to do is stub-out the interface in order to make a single test call ; where that lead to an important function ending up containing just " return 0 ; " all the way to production ; which cost us time and money .
But I do n't " hate " pure virtual functions for finding them pointless and unhelpful .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the kind of error messages you see from programmers who use exceptions \_poorly\_.
I use exceptions well, and in doing so I don't just use the pointlessly empty exception classes.
I have a tidy little toolbox with a slelect few exception classes that are normally instanced in a way that includes file and line numbers (for me) and useful text (for the user) at a minimum.
Heck, when I compile with a debug macro defined (q.v.
-DDEBUG) on a GCC/GlibC based system, my exception constructor saves a whole stack trace created at construction using backtrace().Oddly enough, such exceptions are typically thrown in response to "doing error checking within the routine".They are also damn handy inside of libraries where, for instance, you want to have a function that returns int and there is no "invalid" value to return (such as -1) because the whole domain of int is a valid value.
(as in doing checksums or hash tables and so on).The fact of the matter is, many people should not be trusted with power tools, and many people should not be trusted with manual tools, but nobody who thinks either kind of tool should not exist for whatever reason should be trusted with any tools at all.You hate exceptions because either (a) you don't know how to use them properly or (b) you have been forced to use the code of someone who doesn't know how to use them properly, and perhaps (c) both of the above.The real predicate is whether the condition can be properly handled locally or not.
Passing an error return code (q.v.
minus-one etc) back through ten layers of function calls is just as information poor a thing to do as throw an empty class as an exception.
In fact its \_worse\_ in most cases as you need to make a tangle of logic to turn a callee's -1+errno for out-of-bounds into your local -1+errno for could-not-allocate, into the callers -1 pool-is-full-use-a-malloc-instead.
This just multiplies for the full Cartesian Product of all possible error paths including those paths that also then fail.Tell me true (presuming you use C/C++ on a posix-like os)...Do you always check the return value from snprintf() to make sure that you didn't run out of buffer during conversion?
Let me guess, you just choose to use really big buffers...Do you wrap every write() in a pointer-increment loop to naturally catch when a write of ten bytes actually only writes 5.
Let me guess, you only check for -1, and only on file descriptors that you think are "likely" to error out...IMHO people who discard features whole-scale, and cite "hate" as a reason are generally guilty of practicing outside their ability.There are plenty of things I "don't do", like I never use pure virtual functions in C++.
I feel they serve no useful purpose except to annoy the programmer that comes along after me.
(Having had a thread safety problem in a code block where one thread called a virtual function on a object that was being destroyed by another thread, and having the resultant call become a call to that NULL kinda irked me.
But I learned my lesson.
I put asserts or exceptions in the functions and document them, and document the class as having no useful default implementation.
Also I've seen fat interfaces where the first thing a user has to do is stub-out the interface in order to make a single test call; where that lead to an important function ending up containing just "return 0;" all the way to production; which cost us time and money.
But I don't "hate" pure virtual functions for finding them pointless and unhelpful.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428652</id>
	<title>Tag: Not a bug, defective by design.</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1260822240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it's not really a bug, just the usual friendly reminder from Microsoft that there's a new version out and it's time to ante up again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's not really a bug , just the usual friendly reminder from Microsoft that there 's a new version out and it 's time to ante up again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's not really a bug, just the usual friendly reminder from Microsoft that there's a new version out and it's time to ante up again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431858</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Up Or Forced Upgrade?</title>
	<author>Mortaegus</author>
	<datestamp>1260810000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Printers make a really bad example.  The vendors sell printers at a loss, because they know you will have to buy ink for it, and the ink is where they hide their margin.  Forcing the customer to buy a new printer would cost them money, as well as you, and so be in neither party's interest.  Worse still, printers or brands that accumulate bad reputations will be avoided, and if the product isn't sold at all, how will the company make money.  Add that to the fact that printer vendors have real competition with each other, unlike microsoft, and it works even less in their favor, since the customer has alternatives.

What makes microsoft so bad is that there really isn't an alternative.  They have usurped control of an entire section of the market and can force their customers to comply with unreasonable demands if they so choose, and their customers lack ANY alternative to such measures, aside from not participating, which isn't an option at all.  Monopolies need to be destroyed, and microsoft is the worst example of such.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Printers make a really bad example .
The vendors sell printers at a loss , because they know you will have to buy ink for it , and the ink is where they hide their margin .
Forcing the customer to buy a new printer would cost them money , as well as you , and so be in neither party 's interest .
Worse still , printers or brands that accumulate bad reputations will be avoided , and if the product is n't sold at all , how will the company make money .
Add that to the fact that printer vendors have real competition with each other , unlike microsoft , and it works even less in their favor , since the customer has alternatives .
What makes microsoft so bad is that there really is n't an alternative .
They have usurped control of an entire section of the market and can force their customers to comply with unreasonable demands if they so choose , and their customers lack ANY alternative to such measures , aside from not participating , which is n't an option at all .
Monopolies need to be destroyed , and microsoft is the worst example of such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Printers make a really bad example.
The vendors sell printers at a loss, because they know you will have to buy ink for it, and the ink is where they hide their margin.
Forcing the customer to buy a new printer would cost them money, as well as you, and so be in neither party's interest.
Worse still, printers or brands that accumulate bad reputations will be avoided, and if the product isn't sold at all, how will the company make money.
Add that to the fact that printer vendors have real competition with each other, unlike microsoft, and it works even less in their favor, since the customer has alternatives.
What makes microsoft so bad is that there really isn't an alternative.
They have usurped control of an entire section of the market and can force their customers to comply with unreasonable demands if they so choose, and their customers lack ANY alternative to such measures, aside from not participating, which isn't an option at all.
Monopolies need to be destroyed, and microsoft is the worst example of such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429590</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1260793740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That package wasn't in the official repo, so it wasn't tested. I trust OOo from the official repos, 'cause I know it has been tested before getting to "stable" version.</p><p>I <b>don't</b> trust packages from random websites, and I would never have installed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That package was n't in the official repo , so it was n't tested .
I trust OOo from the official repos , 'cause I know it has been tested before getting to " stable " version.I do n't trust packages from random websites , and I would never have installed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That package wasn't in the official repo, so it wasn't tested.
I trust OOo from the official repos, 'cause I know it has been tested before getting to "stable" version.I don't trust packages from random websites, and I would never have installed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429126</id>
	<title>A copy protection system called RMS?</title>
	<author>mattcsn</author>
	<datestamp>1260786420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, someone at Microsoft has a sense of humour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , someone at Microsoft has a sense of humour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, someone at Microsoft has a sense of humour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431514</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260808740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a programmer. Every time I have ever tried to make a nice helpful error message that expected a particular problem and advised how to handle it, I have been burned.  For example, if I got back a credit card expired error, I told the user the credit card was expired.  Unfortunately, it turns out sometimes banks are happy to give back credit card expired errors when the problem isn't that the card has expired, and don't give back card expired errors when the problem is that the card has expired, and I ended up with confused users doing the wrong thing based on the feedback I gave them.  They ended up doing the right thing more often when I gave back a generic error message that told them to try again *once* then give up and get a new form of payment.<br>The problem with giving useful error messages is that it's somewhere between hard and impossible to test and verify that you have the situation covered properly.  Even something as simple as "I got back card expired, tell the user card is expired" isn't reliable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a programmer .
Every time I have ever tried to make a nice helpful error message that expected a particular problem and advised how to handle it , I have been burned .
For example , if I got back a credit card expired error , I told the user the credit card was expired .
Unfortunately , it turns out sometimes banks are happy to give back credit card expired errors when the problem is n't that the card has expired , and do n't give back card expired errors when the problem is that the card has expired , and I ended up with confused users doing the wrong thing based on the feedback I gave them .
They ended up doing the right thing more often when I gave back a generic error message that told them to try again * once * then give up and get a new form of payment.The problem with giving useful error messages is that it 's somewhere between hard and impossible to test and verify that you have the situation covered properly .
Even something as simple as " I got back card expired , tell the user card is expired " is n't reliable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a programmer.
Every time I have ever tried to make a nice helpful error message that expected a particular problem and advised how to handle it, I have been burned.
For example, if I got back a credit card expired error, I told the user the credit card was expired.
Unfortunately, it turns out sometimes banks are happy to give back credit card expired errors when the problem isn't that the card has expired, and don't give back card expired errors when the problem is that the card has expired, and I ended up with confused users doing the wrong thing based on the feedback I gave them.
They ended up doing the right thing more often when I gave back a generic error message that told them to try again *once* then give up and get a new form of payment.The problem with giving useful error messages is that it's somewhere between hard and impossible to test and verify that you have the situation covered properly.
Even something as simple as "I got back card expired, tell the user card is expired" isn't reliable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428684</id>
	<title>Design Choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260822660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why wouldn't Microsoft allow the end user to setup and manage their own certificates upon installation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't Microsoft allow the end user to setup and manage their own certificates upon installation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't Microsoft allow the end user to setup and manage their own certificates upon installation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428930</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1260782820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Their error messages might as well say, "Our program fucked up, we're dipshits, we don't know what the fuck is going on. In fact, we couldn't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk, or high."</p></div><p>It would be funnier to get messages like: "Our program fucked up. -- Error code: ss324. Help me. I've been in a cage for the last two years. They feed me the corpses of the programmers who didn't make it through the big flood. I don't want to die. Please help!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... HH/991.DDF. For more information, contact your system administrator."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their error messages might as well say , " Our program fucked up , we 're dipshits , we do n't know what the fuck is going on .
In fact , we could n't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk , or high .
" It would be funnier to get messages like : " Our program fucked up .
-- Error code : ss324 .
Help me .
I 've been in a cage for the last two years .
They feed me the corpses of the programmers who did n't make it through the big flood .
I do n't want to die .
Please help !
... HH/991.DDF .
For more information , contact your system administrator .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their error messages might as well say, "Our program fucked up, we're dipshits, we don't know what the fuck is going on.
In fact, we couldn't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk, or high.
"It would be funnier to get messages like: "Our program fucked up.
-- Error code: ss324.
Help me.
I've been in a cage for the last two years.
They feed me the corpses of the programmers who didn't make it through the big flood.
I don't want to die.
Please help!
... HH/991.DDF.
For more information, contact your system administrator.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30442406</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1260880140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sort of like the web you mean? Cause we all know there's no security vulnerabilities there...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of like the web you mean ?
Cause we all know there 's no security vulnerabilities there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of like the web you mean?
Cause we all know there's no security vulnerabilities there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429544</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260792720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I had my way, documents would be done using plain text and markup languages. Everything is simple and separate, so you don't have many security issues that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had my way , documents would be done using plain text and markup languages .
Everything is simple and separate , so you do n't have many security issues that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had my way, documents would be done using plain text and markup languages.
Everything is simple and separate, so you don't have many security issues that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30436710</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>cecom</author>
	<datestamp>1260791220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You seem to hate unchecked exceptions.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception\_handling#Checked\_exceptions" title="wikipedia.org">Checked exceptions</a> [wikipedia.org] force you to think about handling or propagating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to hate unchecked exceptions.Checked exceptions [ wikipedia.org ] force you to think about handling or propagating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to hate unchecked exceptions.Checked exceptions [wikipedia.org] force you to think about handling or propagating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429894</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>driddint</author>
	<datestamp>1260798480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody reads the error messages. Repeat, nobody. They just click Yes or Ok, then report "it doesn't work". Amazingly, a high proportion of programmers also do the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody reads the error messages .
Repeat , nobody .
They just click Yes or Ok , then report " it does n't work " .
Amazingly , a high proportion of programmers also do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody reads the error messages.
Repeat, nobody.
They just click Yes or Ok, then report "it doesn't work".
Amazingly, a high proportion of programmers also do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428892</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260782280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Millions of people appear to find it acceptable when it comes to e-mail through Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Millions of people appear to find it acceptable when it comes to e-mail through Google , Microsoft , Yahoo , etc. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Millions of people appear to find it acceptable when it comes to e-mail through Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428952</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260783180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple cost/benefit analysis: if it gives you a competitive advantage, it may be worth it, even though you may have to pay for it down the road.  The value of documents to businesses decreases as time passes: they are interested in making money, not in retaining archives.<br> <br>
That said, I'm not entirely sure using Office 2003 gives you such a competitive advantage over other products. But that is not my decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple cost/benefit analysis : if it gives you a competitive advantage , it may be worth it , even though you may have to pay for it down the road .
The value of documents to businesses decreases as time passes : they are interested in making money , not in retaining archives .
That said , I 'm not entirely sure using Office 2003 gives you such a competitive advantage over other products .
But that is not my decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple cost/benefit analysis: if it gives you a competitive advantage, it may be worth it, even though you may have to pay for it down the road.
The value of documents to businesses decreases as time passes: they are interested in making money, not in retaining archives.
That said, I'm not entirely sure using Office 2003 gives you such a competitive advantage over other products.
But that is not my decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429142</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260786660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Having the source out there before the fact didn't help in that case [omgubuntu.co.uk]</p></div><p>Except it did help because the malware was <b>found</b> since it was a shell script. Also it's a lesson not to install stuff which is untrusted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having the source out there before the fact did n't help in that case [ omgubuntu.co.uk ] Except it did help because the malware was found since it was a shell script .
Also it 's a lesson not to install stuff which is untrusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having the source out there before the fact didn't help in that case [omgubuntu.co.uk]Except it did help because the malware was found since it was a shell script.
Also it's a lesson not to install stuff which is untrusted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431014</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1260806340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Code reuse is the more likely problem.  The biggest problem is that each component has to assume there is no UI.  It could be in a GUI, or commandline, or silent mode, or a service, or whatever else, so it doesn't pop up an error message - it just returns a value.</p><p>You tell your handy security library to use the internet library to connect to the microsoft server thingie, and the internet library doesn't have any reason to know about certificates.  The security library assumes the certificate will always be valid (or the network will take care of that), so it doesn't have a "bad certificate" return value.  Then the app doesn't check the return values (only success/fail), or it's not in the list of things to check.</p><p>Detailing your actions makes it easier to disassemble and comprehend, so lots of proprietary coders don't do that.  Bubbling up an exception could have a detailed description of why something failed, but proprietary coders don't want end users to see the gory details of what their code is doing.  "Confusing error messages" is one of those things Windows users hate, so they generally either detail what you might do to fix it or, if it's too detailed or on a server instead, just skip that part.</p><p>It's nothing the user can do anything about, so why bother reporting it?  Plus you need to make translations and test cases to ensure your message pops up in all languages when the cert is expired... more work when you could just ship it, and list a known risk that the server team has to keep the cert up to date.</p><p>I know, tldr.  Black box programming combined with allowing ignorant users peace of mind will result in this type scenario every time.  I always chuckle when I see "Table or view does not exist" errors in Oracle SQL when I can see the table in the list of ALL\_USER\_TABLES or similar.  I don't have access to it, and revealing that it exists but I'm, not allowed to read from it might be a security violation the same way "bad username" vs "bad password" gives brute-force people more information to work with so you say "bad username/password combination" and now they don't know if the user exists.  Maybe they thought of that, or maybe they tried to select, got 'denied' return code, and translated that into one they do have a text string for.</p><p>So many possibilities, of which yours is the least likely.  Exceptions can be done well, there just aren't enough good examples out there so it takes a serious debugging headache before someone looks at a better way of doing it.  Then Management says the errors are too wordy and you're back to "Unexpected error" meaning everything from "Network down" to "I crapped my pants".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Code reuse is the more likely problem .
The biggest problem is that each component has to assume there is no UI .
It could be in a GUI , or commandline , or silent mode , or a service , or whatever else , so it does n't pop up an error message - it just returns a value.You tell your handy security library to use the internet library to connect to the microsoft server thingie , and the internet library does n't have any reason to know about certificates .
The security library assumes the certificate will always be valid ( or the network will take care of that ) , so it does n't have a " bad certificate " return value .
Then the app does n't check the return values ( only success/fail ) , or it 's not in the list of things to check.Detailing your actions makes it easier to disassemble and comprehend , so lots of proprietary coders do n't do that .
Bubbling up an exception could have a detailed description of why something failed , but proprietary coders do n't want end users to see the gory details of what their code is doing .
" Confusing error messages " is one of those things Windows users hate , so they generally either detail what you might do to fix it or , if it 's too detailed or on a server instead , just skip that part.It 's nothing the user can do anything about , so why bother reporting it ?
Plus you need to make translations and test cases to ensure your message pops up in all languages when the cert is expired... more work when you could just ship it , and list a known risk that the server team has to keep the cert up to date.I know , tldr .
Black box programming combined with allowing ignorant users peace of mind will result in this type scenario every time .
I always chuckle when I see " Table or view does not exist " errors in Oracle SQL when I can see the table in the list of ALL \ _USER \ _TABLES or similar .
I do n't have access to it , and revealing that it exists but I 'm , not allowed to read from it might be a security violation the same way " bad username " vs " bad password " gives brute-force people more information to work with so you say " bad username/password combination " and now they do n't know if the user exists .
Maybe they thought of that , or maybe they tried to select , got 'denied ' return code , and translated that into one they do have a text string for.So many possibilities , of which yours is the least likely .
Exceptions can be done well , there just are n't enough good examples out there so it takes a serious debugging headache before someone looks at a better way of doing it .
Then Management says the errors are too wordy and you 're back to " Unexpected error " meaning everything from " Network down " to " I crapped my pants " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Code reuse is the more likely problem.
The biggest problem is that each component has to assume there is no UI.
It could be in a GUI, or commandline, or silent mode, or a service, or whatever else, so it doesn't pop up an error message - it just returns a value.You tell your handy security library to use the internet library to connect to the microsoft server thingie, and the internet library doesn't have any reason to know about certificates.
The security library assumes the certificate will always be valid (or the network will take care of that), so it doesn't have a "bad certificate" return value.
Then the app doesn't check the return values (only success/fail), or it's not in the list of things to check.Detailing your actions makes it easier to disassemble and comprehend, so lots of proprietary coders don't do that.
Bubbling up an exception could have a detailed description of why something failed, but proprietary coders don't want end users to see the gory details of what their code is doing.
"Confusing error messages" is one of those things Windows users hate, so they generally either detail what you might do to fix it or, if it's too detailed or on a server instead, just skip that part.It's nothing the user can do anything about, so why bother reporting it?
Plus you need to make translations and test cases to ensure your message pops up in all languages when the cert is expired... more work when you could just ship it, and list a known risk that the server team has to keep the cert up to date.I know, tldr.
Black box programming combined with allowing ignorant users peace of mind will result in this type scenario every time.
I always chuckle when I see "Table or view does not exist" errors in Oracle SQL when I can see the table in the list of ALL\_USER\_TABLES or similar.
I don't have access to it, and revealing that it exists but I'm, not allowed to read from it might be a security violation the same way "bad username" vs "bad password" gives brute-force people more information to work with so you say "bad username/password combination" and now they don't know if the user exists.
Maybe they thought of that, or maybe they tried to select, got 'denied' return code, and translated that into one they do have a text string for.So many possibilities, of which yours is the least likely.
Exceptions can be done well, there just aren't enough good examples out there so it takes a serious debugging headache before someone looks at a better way of doing it.
Then Management says the errors are too wordy and you're back to "Unexpected error" meaning everything from "Network down" to "I crapped my pants".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429122</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>AndGodSed</author>
	<datestamp>1260786360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are referencing a SCRIPT that was MEANT TO DO HARM.</p><p>There is a difference. The "malware" was really a simple script that asked for root before it got installed and used pre-installed programs that are available in the Ubuntu install to ping a server and download a file from another to do... something nefarious.</p><p>The easiest fix in the case of that script would be to force wget to launch with a tty attached instead of being launched in the background. Presto you have plugged a hole that this script exploited right there.</p><p>Security holes will be found continuously, by both sides of the fight - it is just up to who finds them first that dictates which way that scenario goes. Now if you compare the proprietary vs the open source software vendor's security track records you will note that the OSS guys are doing rather better than the proprietary guys.</p><p>Why? In OSS the source is available for those who protect AS WELL AS those who exploit, yet the exploits are less, and are patched quicker. In proprietary land the source is available ONLY to the vendors - yet exploits abound.</p><p>Another point is that you are comparing a targeted attack on a discovered weakness to a possible software bug that migh cause problems in the future.</p><p>Also, you forget that in the case we are discussing the fix HAS to come from Microsoft - they responded admirably quickly with a hotfix btw - but in the case of OpenOffice (for instance) you would be able to implement fixes from a larger number of vendors, or their partners or well meaning codesmiths all over the world.</p><p>The odds just favour OSS in this scenario to perform better, and to be fixed quicker if something breaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are referencing a SCRIPT that was MEANT TO DO HARM.There is a difference .
The " malware " was really a simple script that asked for root before it got installed and used pre-installed programs that are available in the Ubuntu install to ping a server and download a file from another to do... something nefarious.The easiest fix in the case of that script would be to force wget to launch with a tty attached instead of being launched in the background .
Presto you have plugged a hole that this script exploited right there.Security holes will be found continuously , by both sides of the fight - it is just up to who finds them first that dictates which way that scenario goes .
Now if you compare the proprietary vs the open source software vendor 's security track records you will note that the OSS guys are doing rather better than the proprietary guys.Why ?
In OSS the source is available for those who protect AS WELL AS those who exploit , yet the exploits are less , and are patched quicker .
In proprietary land the source is available ONLY to the vendors - yet exploits abound.Another point is that you are comparing a targeted attack on a discovered weakness to a possible software bug that migh cause problems in the future.Also , you forget that in the case we are discussing the fix HAS to come from Microsoft - they responded admirably quickly with a hotfix btw - but in the case of OpenOffice ( for instance ) you would be able to implement fixes from a larger number of vendors , or their partners or well meaning codesmiths all over the world.The odds just favour OSS in this scenario to perform better , and to be fixed quicker if something breaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are referencing a SCRIPT that was MEANT TO DO HARM.There is a difference.
The "malware" was really a simple script that asked for root before it got installed and used pre-installed programs that are available in the Ubuntu install to ping a server and download a file from another to do... something nefarious.The easiest fix in the case of that script would be to force wget to launch with a tty attached instead of being launched in the background.
Presto you have plugged a hole that this script exploited right there.Security holes will be found continuously, by both sides of the fight - it is just up to who finds them first that dictates which way that scenario goes.
Now if you compare the proprietary vs the open source software vendor's security track records you will note that the OSS guys are doing rather better than the proprietary guys.Why?
In OSS the source is available for those who protect AS WELL AS those who exploit, yet the exploits are less, and are patched quicker.
In proprietary land the source is available ONLY to the vendors - yet exploits abound.Another point is that you are comparing a targeted attack on a discovered weakness to a possible software bug that migh cause problems in the future.Also, you forget that in the case we are discussing the fix HAS to come from Microsoft - they responded admirably quickly with a hotfix btw - but in the case of OpenOffice (for instance) you would be able to implement fixes from a larger number of vendors, or their partners or well meaning codesmiths all over the world.The odds just favour OSS in this scenario to perform better, and to be fixed quicker if something breaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429834</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260797880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's how I handle it. Every "important" function (this is in C++) has the following preamble:</p><p>void interestingFunction()<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; StatusFrame s("Important");<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if (something) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; s.set("doing something else");<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>}</p><p>The StatusFrame constructor is very lightweight, as it copies a word to an array and increments a pointer.<br>The set method does a similar thing.<br>When an exception is thrown, my exception class first takes a snapshot of the status frame stack. Then,<br>when the exception is handled, it has a nice toString() method that tells more-or-less exactly what<br>happened and where. Fast, easy, doesn't let anyone wet and hanging out to dry. So where's the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how I handle it .
Every " important " function ( this is in C + + ) has the following preamble : void interestingFunction ( ) {       StatusFrame s ( " Important " ) ; .. .       if ( something ) {             s.set ( " doing something else " ) ; .. .       } } The StatusFrame constructor is very lightweight , as it copies a word to an array and increments a pointer.The set method does a similar thing.When an exception is thrown , my exception class first takes a snapshot of the status frame stack .
Then,when the exception is handled , it has a nice toString ( ) method that tells more-or-less exactly whathappened and where .
Fast , easy , does n't let anyone wet and hanging out to dry .
So where 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how I handle it.
Every "important" function (this is in C++) has the following preamble:void interestingFunction(){
      StatusFrame s("Important"); ...
      if (something) {
            s.set("doing something else"); ...
      }}The StatusFrame constructor is very lightweight, as it copies a word to an array and increments a pointer.The set method does a similar thing.When an exception is thrown, my exception class first takes a snapshot of the status frame stack.
Then,when the exception is handled, it has a nice toString() method that tells more-or-less exactly whathappened and where.
Fast, easy, doesn't let anyone wet and hanging out to dry.
So where's the problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260790200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I blame this kind of error messages on programmers who use exceptions. Instead of doing error checking within the routine that has the problem and crafting an error message in there, you just throw an exception, hoping for the caller to take care of it. If the caller doesn't then the exception keeps floating up until nobody has a clue to what the condition was, hence "<i>unexpected error</i>". I hate exceptions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame this kind of error messages on programmers who use exceptions .
Instead of doing error checking within the routine that has the problem and crafting an error message in there , you just throw an exception , hoping for the caller to take care of it .
If the caller does n't then the exception keeps floating up until nobody has a clue to what the condition was , hence " unexpected error " .
I hate exceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame this kind of error messages on programmers who use exceptions.
Instead of doing error checking within the routine that has the problem and crafting an error message in there, you just throw an exception, hoping for the caller to take care of it.
If the caller doesn't then the exception keeps floating up until nobody has a clue to what the condition was, hence "unexpected error".
I hate exceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428998</id>
	<title>Re:Tag: Not a bug, defective by design.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260784080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess in some way you're right.  When Office 2003 goes unsupported, the certificate will expire and people will be forced to upgrade and that probably <em>is</em> something Microsoft has documented and understands (and thus a "feature").  However, I still think we could call this an operational screw up.  I really don't think they want to remind people of their power to do an <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/25/kindle\_conundrum/" title="theregister.co.uk">Amazon</a> [theregister.co.uk] on all and any of your files until they have people nice and solidly locked in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess in some way you 're right .
When Office 2003 goes unsupported , the certificate will expire and people will be forced to upgrade and that probably is something Microsoft has documented and understands ( and thus a " feature " ) .
However , I still think we could call this an operational screw up .
I really do n't think they want to remind people of their power to do an Amazon [ theregister.co.uk ] on all and any of your files until they have people nice and solidly locked in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess in some way you're right.
When Office 2003 goes unsupported, the certificate will expire and people will be forced to upgrade and that probably is something Microsoft has documented and understands (and thus a "feature").
However, I still think we could call this an operational screw up.
I really don't think they want to remind people of their power to do an Amazon [theregister.co.uk] on all and any of your files until they have people nice and solidly locked in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430736</id>
	<title>Our solution to this problem</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1260804900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're using C++.  We wanted to use the <b>fopen</b>-related set of functions, because they provide better error information than the C++ iostreams library does.</p><p>But as you mentioned, it can drive you nuts writing all kinds of error handling code for each call to <b>fopen</b>, <b>fwrite</b>, etc.</p><p>So for each of those functions, we wrapped them with a function that tests the error codes, and throws a very descriptive exception if/when a problem occurs.</p><p>This seems to be working well for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're using C + + .
We wanted to use the fopen-related set of functions , because they provide better error information than the C + + iostreams library does.But as you mentioned , it can drive you nuts writing all kinds of error handling code for each call to fopen , fwrite , etc.So for each of those functions , we wrapped them with a function that tests the error codes , and throws a very descriptive exception if/when a problem occurs.This seems to be working well for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're using C++.
We wanted to use the fopen-related set of functions, because they provide better error information than the C++ iostreams library does.But as you mentioned, it can drive you nuts writing all kinds of error handling code for each call to fopen, fwrite, etc.So for each of those functions, we wrapped them with a function that tests the error codes, and throws a very descriptive exception if/when a problem occurs.This seems to be working well for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30432868</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260814620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then takest thee thou Holy Handgrenade of Open Source and lob it at Redmond, and thine enemy, being naughty in my site shall certainly snuff it. Amen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then takest thee thou Holy Handgrenade of Open Source and lob it at Redmond , and thine enemy , being naughty in my site shall certainly snuff it .
Amen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then takest thee thou Holy Handgrenade of Open Source and lob it at Redmond, and thine enemy, being naughty in my site shall certainly snuff it.
Amen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431426</id>
	<title>Expected error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260808380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>div by zero is an error that could be expected any time you are doing division with external inputs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>div by zero is an error that could be expected any time you are doing division with external inputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>div by zero is an error that could be expected any time you are doing division with external inputs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428658</id>
	<title>Unbelievable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260822360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God I hate microsoft. I really do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God I hate microsoft .
I really do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God I hate microsoft.
I really do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430810</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1260805200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you are describing isn't a problem with the exception system, as you are free to craft your exception-handling system so that it informs you exactly where the exception was thrown. If you want to blame someone then blame those who failed to learn how to use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are describing is n't a problem with the exception system , as you are free to craft your exception-handling system so that it informs you exactly where the exception was thrown .
If you want to blame someone then blame those who failed to learn how to use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are describing isn't a problem with the exception system, as you are free to craft your exception-handling system so that it informs you exactly where the exception was thrown.
If you want to blame someone then blame those who failed to learn how to use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430236</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1260801660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Their error messages might as well say, "Our program fucked up, we're dipshits, we don't know what the fuck is going on. In fact, we couldn't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk, or high."</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, but then how would it be an unexpected error?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their error messages might as well say , " Our program fucked up , we 're dipshits , we do n't know what the fuck is going on .
In fact , we could n't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk , or high .
" Yeah , but then how would it be an unexpected error ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their error messages might as well say, "Our program fucked up, we're dipshits, we don't know what the fuck is going on.
In fact, we couldn't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk, or high.
"Yeah, but then how would it be an unexpected error?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429604</id>
	<title>it's a feature not a bug :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's a feature not a bug<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a feature not a bug : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a feature not a bug :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430412</id>
	<title>Expected unexpecteds</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1260802920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's still a problem of terminology. The programmer knew that there could be errors that his code wouldn't explain to the user. He even put a default message box in there to notify the user.</p><p>So it becomes a philosophical question: If you know that something can happen that you didn't plan for, is it really unexpected?</p><p>Maybe the programmer should have given unhandled errors a fancy name. Then users would see the error and contact a system administrator or just chalk it up to their own ignorance and try something else. Maybe a name like: <tt>GURU MEDITATION ERROR</tt>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's still a problem of terminology .
The programmer knew that there could be errors that his code would n't explain to the user .
He even put a default message box in there to notify the user.So it becomes a philosophical question : If you know that something can happen that you did n't plan for , is it really unexpected ? Maybe the programmer should have given unhandled errors a fancy name .
Then users would see the error and contact a system administrator or just chalk it up to their own ignorance and try something else .
Maybe a name like : GURU MEDITATION ERROR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's still a problem of terminology.
The programmer knew that there could be errors that his code wouldn't explain to the user.
He even put a default message box in there to notify the user.So it becomes a philosophical question: If you know that something can happen that you didn't plan for, is it really unexpected?Maybe the programmer should have given unhandled errors a fancy name.
Then users would see the error and contact a system administrator or just chalk it up to their own ignorance and try something else.
Maybe a name like: GURU MEDITATION ERROR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430426</id>
	<title>There's the problem...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1260803040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>catch(...) {<br>messagebox("an unexpected error occurred");<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// this is where the unexpected errors are handled<br>}</p></div></blockquote><p>And:</p><blockquote><div><p>default: messagebox("unexpected error");</p></div></blockquote><p>That's the problem. The correct code should be:</p><blockquote><div><p>default: messagebox("unexpected error: \%s", strerror(ERRNO));</p><p>Or better:</p><blockquote><div><p>default: messagebox("unexpected error: \%s: \%s", relevantFileName, strerror(ERRNO));</p><p>But even just:</p><blockquote><div><p>default: messagebox("unexpected error (\%d)", ERRNO);</p><p>is better then nothing.</p><p>(or the equivalent code using something like E.ErrorDescription(), etcetera)</p><p>I ranted on this way back in the '90s when Windows dial-up networking was still relevant in <a href="http://scarydevil.com/~peter/io/stupidsoftware.html" title="scarydevil.com">"The Case for Stupid Software"</a> [scarydevil.com]...</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>catch ( ... ) { messagebox ( " an unexpected error occurred " ) ; // this is where the unexpected errors are handled } And : default : messagebox ( " unexpected error " ) ; That 's the problem .
The correct code should be : default : messagebox ( " unexpected error : \ % s " , strerror ( ERRNO ) ) ; Or better : default : messagebox ( " unexpected error : \ % s : \ % s " , relevantFileName , strerror ( ERRNO ) ) ; But even just : default : messagebox ( " unexpected error ( \ % d ) " , ERRNO ) ; is better then nothing .
( or the equivalent code using something like E.ErrorDescription ( ) , etcetera ) I ranted on this way back in the '90s when Windows dial-up networking was still relevant in " The Case for Stupid Software " [ scarydevil.com ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>catch(...) {messagebox("an unexpected error occurred"); // this is where the unexpected errors are handled}And:default: messagebox("unexpected error");That's the problem.
The correct code should be:default: messagebox("unexpected error: \%s", strerror(ERRNO));Or better:default: messagebox("unexpected error: \%s: \%s", relevantFileName, strerror(ERRNO));But even just:default: messagebox("unexpected error (\%d)", ERRNO);is better then nothing.
(or the equivalent code using something like E.ErrorDescription(), etcetera)I ranted on this way back in the '90s when Windows dial-up networking was still relevant in "The Case for Stupid Software" [scarydevil.com]...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428968</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1260783360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet people use such things as gmail, hotmail, facebook, and etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet people use such things as gmail , hotmail , facebook , and etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet people use such things as gmail, hotmail, facebook, and etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429154</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Up Or Forced Upgrade?</title>
	<author>GNious</author>
	<datestamp>1260786840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Microsoft isn't making any money from all those old copies of 2003, so what's stop them from "Programming Obsolescence" into their software?</p></div><p>Most of my customers (Automotive Manufacturing) have rules all vendors MUST submit to that disallows any system or software to stop being operational (by design) - even if license-keys, certs et al expires.</p><p>Now, whether MS has managed to work around this by throwing money at the GMs of this world, I cannot say. All I know is that if we pulled a stunt like this, we'd end up handing over the company to the first one that sues us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is n't making any money from all those old copies of 2003 , so what 's stop them from " Programming Obsolescence " into their software ? Most of my customers ( Automotive Manufacturing ) have rules all vendors MUST submit to that disallows any system or software to stop being operational ( by design ) - even if license-keys , certs et al expires.Now , whether MS has managed to work around this by throwing money at the GMs of this world , I can not say .
All I know is that if we pulled a stunt like this , we 'd end up handing over the company to the first one that sues us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Microsoft isn't making any money from all those old copies of 2003, so what's stop them from "Programming Obsolescence" into their software?Most of my customers (Automotive Manufacturing) have rules all vendors MUST submit to that disallows any system or software to stop being operational (by design) - even if license-keys, certs et al expires.Now, whether MS has managed to work around this by throwing money at the GMs of this world, I cannot say.
All I know is that if we pulled a stunt like this, we'd end up handing over the company to the first one that sues us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430038</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260800040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Masters of disaster?  ERRNO isn't a Microsoft invention.  It is a part of ANSI/ISO standard C, and this global variable behavior that you describe is a requirement of POSIX.  Win32 doesn't behave in that manner at all.  In Win32, an API will return a value where 0 indicates success and any other value is the error number, or the API will use another mechanism to indicate success and then the code will have to call GetLastError() to obtain the error number.  GetLastError() tracks the error on a per-thread basis.</p><p>Or course MS does use try/catch for every language that actually supports it, but c lacks try/catch so a language agnostic API such as Win32 cannot rely on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Masters of disaster ?
ERRNO is n't a Microsoft invention .
It is a part of ANSI/ISO standard C , and this global variable behavior that you describe is a requirement of POSIX .
Win32 does n't behave in that manner at all .
In Win32 , an API will return a value where 0 indicates success and any other value is the error number , or the API will use another mechanism to indicate success and then the code will have to call GetLastError ( ) to obtain the error number .
GetLastError ( ) tracks the error on a per-thread basis.Or course MS does use try/catch for every language that actually supports it , but c lacks try/catch so a language agnostic API such as Win32 can not rely on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Masters of disaster?
ERRNO isn't a Microsoft invention.
It is a part of ANSI/ISO standard C, and this global variable behavior that you describe is a requirement of POSIX.
Win32 doesn't behave in that manner at all.
In Win32, an API will return a value where 0 indicates success and any other value is the error number, or the API will use another mechanism to indicate success and then the code will have to call GetLastError() to obtain the error number.
GetLastError() tracks the error on a per-thread basis.Or course MS does use try/catch for every language that actually supports it, but c lacks try/catch so a language agnostic API such as Win32 cannot rely on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429564</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1260792960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The funny thing is I can read in stuff from the 1980s that doesn't even use ASCII and these clowns can't even keep files readable for six years.<br>Proudly brought to you by the guys that stranded a ship with a divide by zero error and halted devices for a day because they forgot about leap years.  They are only ready for the "Enterprise" is you have a few spare redshirts to lose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is I can read in stuff from the 1980s that does n't even use ASCII and these clowns ca n't even keep files readable for six years.Proudly brought to you by the guys that stranded a ship with a divide by zero error and halted devices for a day because they forgot about leap years .
They are only ready for the " Enterprise " is you have a few spare redshirts to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is I can read in stuff from the 1980s that doesn't even use ASCII and these clowns can't even keep files readable for six years.Proudly brought to you by the guys that stranded a ship with a divide by zero error and halted devices for a day because they forgot about leap years.
They are only ready for the "Enterprise" is you have a few spare redshirts to lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428920</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>Sparx139</author>
	<datestamp>1260782700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technically, yes. I could not be bothered trawling through the source code of OOo to look for malicious code (and frankly, I doubt I'd understand most of the code anyway), so I am placing my trust in the dev team. But I know that it's less likely to happen, because it wasn't developed by a single company, but by many people. That, and if this happened, a fix would appear quickly (a lot more quickly than if it was a M$ product)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically , yes .
I could not be bothered trawling through the source code of OOo to look for malicious code ( and frankly , I doubt I 'd understand most of the code anyway ) , so I am placing my trust in the dev team .
But I know that it 's less likely to happen , because it was n't developed by a single company , but by many people .
That , and if this happened , a fix would appear quickly ( a lot more quickly than if it was a M $ product )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically, yes.
I could not be bothered trawling through the source code of OOo to look for malicious code (and frankly, I doubt I'd understand most of the code anyway), so I am placing my trust in the dev team.
But I know that it's less likely to happen, because it wasn't developed by a single company, but by many people.
That, and if this happened, a fix would appear quickly (a lot more quickly than if it was a M$ product)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428666</id>
	<title>Locks OUT!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260822480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was about to type out a long post extolling the virtues of... erm... something... and then I blinked back to my screen and realised I had just envisaged what a mistake like this from an upstream supplier (in this case Microsoft) would have on my work day.</p><p>I am in IT and I would have had hundreds of phonecalls for this by now, and it is only 09:24... sheesh to apply a hotfix like this to all my clients...</p><p>woops there I went again imagining what this would mean for my workday... I can't actually say that any of our clients use the RMS service on their office documents.</p><p>Wowee, dodged a bullet there.</p><p>Good luck to all the IT grunts out there in the trenches trying to get this fixed right now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was about to type out a long post extolling the virtues of... erm... something... and then I blinked back to my screen and realised I had just envisaged what a mistake like this from an upstream supplier ( in this case Microsoft ) would have on my work day.I am in IT and I would have had hundreds of phonecalls for this by now , and it is only 09 : 24... sheesh to apply a hotfix like this to all my clients...woops there I went again imagining what this would mean for my workday... I ca n't actually say that any of our clients use the RMS service on their office documents.Wowee , dodged a bullet there.Good luck to all the IT grunts out there in the trenches trying to get this fixed right now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was about to type out a long post extolling the virtues of... erm... something... and then I blinked back to my screen and realised I had just envisaged what a mistake like this from an upstream supplier (in this case Microsoft) would have on my work day.I am in IT and I would have had hundreds of phonecalls for this by now, and it is only 09:24... sheesh to apply a hotfix like this to all my clients...woops there I went again imagining what this would mean for my workday... I can't actually say that any of our clients use the RMS service on their office documents.Wowee, dodged a bullet there.Good luck to all the IT grunts out there in the trenches trying to get this fixed right now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429214</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260787800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a 1337 hax0r u shud nou *cough* that you can only create specific messages for accounted exceptions you catch. Those not "expected" due to bugs, noise, crashes etc. simply fall under generic 'Unexpected error..' message. I know only the elite can expect the unexpected but hey, give us simple folks a break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a 1337 hax0r u shud nou * cough * that you can only create specific messages for accounted exceptions you catch .
Those not " expected " due to bugs , noise , crashes etc .
simply fall under generic 'Unexpected error.. ' message .
I know only the elite can expect the unexpected but hey , give us simple folks a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a 1337 hax0r u shud nou *cough* that you can only create specific messages for accounted exceptions you catch.
Those not "expected" due to bugs, noise, crashes etc.
simply fall under generic 'Unexpected error..' message.
I know only the elite can expect the unexpected but hey, give us simple folks a break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30433354</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1260817140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft isn't even close to the worst offender here. I once for an error from Lotus Notes that read:</p><p>"An error has occurred while processing a request on an object."</p><p>Found a handy screenshot at an appropriate domain name: <a href="http://lotusnotessucks.4t.com/img/lnEx80\_ErrorProcessReqObj.gif" title="4t.com">http://lotusnotessucks.4t.com/img/lnEx80\_ErrorProcessReqObj.gif</a> [4t.com]</p><p>This dialog brings up so many questions. Like, "what error?" and "what request?" and "what object?"</p><p>It also helps that Lotus Notes never seems to define what an object *is* in practical terms. I'm sure they're referring to the objects in their OOP code, but it's not like the end user knows what those are, or for that matter, should ever seen the term "object" in the UI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is n't even close to the worst offender here .
I once for an error from Lotus Notes that read : " An error has occurred while processing a request on an object .
" Found a handy screenshot at an appropriate domain name : http : //lotusnotessucks.4t.com/img/lnEx80 \ _ErrorProcessReqObj.gif [ 4t.com ] This dialog brings up so many questions .
Like , " what error ?
" and " what request ?
" and " what object ?
" It also helps that Lotus Notes never seems to define what an object * is * in practical terms .
I 'm sure they 're referring to the objects in their OOP code , but it 's not like the end user knows what those are , or for that matter , should ever seen the term " object " in the UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft isn't even close to the worst offender here.
I once for an error from Lotus Notes that read:"An error has occurred while processing a request on an object.
"Found a handy screenshot at an appropriate domain name: http://lotusnotessucks.4t.com/img/lnEx80\_ErrorProcessReqObj.gif [4t.com]This dialog brings up so many questions.
Like, "what error?
" and "what request?
" and "what object?
"It also helps that Lotus Notes never seems to define what an object *is* in practical terms.
I'm sure they're referring to the objects in their OOP code, but it's not like the end user knows what those are, or for that matter, should ever seen the term "object" in the UI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428972</id>
	<title>Important PSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260783420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> in that case [omgubuntu.co.uk],</p> </div><p>
<b>WARNING!</b>
</p><p>
Ridiculous FUD site (OMGubuntu) in parent comment.
</p><p>
Please put aside any credibility before reading or you may suffer significant loss..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in that case [ omgubuntu.co.uk ] , WARNING !
Ridiculous FUD site ( OMGubuntu ) in parent comment .
Please put aside any credibility before reading or you may suffer significant loss. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> in that case [omgubuntu.co.uk], 
WARNING!
Ridiculous FUD site (OMGubuntu) in parent comment.
Please put aside any credibility before reading or you may suffer significant loss..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429580</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260793260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love these kind of messages. Everybody keeps calling me, it says here you know what is going on. WTF? I don't have a clue what you've done, just because I am the system administrator I am not telepathic or having some kind of better error messages mailed to me...<br>Even better, you are installing something and the dialog pops up: "Contact your system administrator". I am the fucking administrator if I wasn't I wouldn't be logged in as 'administrator'...you haven't told me what the problem is...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love these kind of messages .
Everybody keeps calling me , it says here you know what is going on .
WTF ? I do n't have a clue what you 've done , just because I am the system administrator I am not telepathic or having some kind of better error messages mailed to me...Even better , you are installing something and the dialog pops up : " Contact your system administrator " .
I am the fucking administrator if I was n't I would n't be logged in as 'administrator'...you have n't told me what the problem is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love these kind of messages.
Everybody keeps calling me, it says here you know what is going on.
WTF? I don't have a clue what you've done, just because I am the system administrator I am not telepathic or having some kind of better error messages mailed to me...Even better, you are installing something and the dialog pops up: "Contact your system administrator".
I am the fucking administrator if I wasn't I wouldn't be logged in as 'administrator'...you haven't told me what the problem is...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1260789600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is simple. Error handling basically works like this<blockquote><div><p> <tt>
try {<br>
command1<br>
command2<br>
command3<br>
}<br>
catch(DiskFullError E) {<br>
   messagebox("not enough free disk space\n"+E.ExtendedInformations());<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//<b> this is an expected error</b> <br>
}<br>
catch(NoWritePermissionError E) {<br>
   messagebox("you don\'t have write permission in that directory\n"+E.ExtendedInformations());<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// <b>this is an expected error</b> <br>
}<br>
catch(DirDoesntExistError E) {<br>
   messagebox("the directory you chose doesn\'t exist\n"+E.ExtendedInfo());<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// <b>this is an expected error</b> <br>
}<br>
catch(...) {<br>
   messagebox("an unexpected error occured");<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// <b>this is where the unexpected errors are handled</b> <br>
}<br>
</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>
you <i>try</i> to do some stuff and if something goes bad, the codes throw an exception, which can be caught by the error-handlers. and if there is no error handler for the error, then this is an unexpected error. this would crash the program, unless you do catch(...), which can also catch unknown exception types<br>
well, in redmond it goes more like this (see MSDN)</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>
if(!command1) {<br>
switch(ERRNO) {<br>
   case 1: messagebox("Error code 1, contact your vendor"); break;<br>
   case 2: messagebox("Error code 2"); break;<br>
   default: messagebox("unexpected error");<br>
}<br>
}else {<br>
if(!command2) {<br>
switch(ERRNO) {<br>
   case 2: messagebox("Error code 2"); break;<br>
   case 3: messagebox("Error code 3, press F1 to see some useless hexadecimal bytes"); break;<br>
   default: messagebox("unexpected error");<br>
}<br>
} else {<br>
if(!command3) {<br>
switch(ERRNO){<br>
   case 1: messagebox("Error code 1, contact your vendor"); break;<br>
   case 4: messagebox("Error code 4, why don\'t you switch to linux?"); break;<br>
   default: messagebox("unexpected error");<br>
}<br>
} else {<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// wohoo, nothing went bad!<br>
}<br>
}<br>
}
</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>
if something goes bad, a global variable (ERRNO) is set to some error code and the functions return <i>false</i>. the <i>default</i> case takes all the values of ERRNO, that are not handled explicitly
 Yes, this is prehistoric and non-thread-safe error handling, but what do you expect from the masters of disaster?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is simple .
Error handling basically works like this try { command1 command2 command3 } catch ( DiskFullError E ) { messagebox ( " not enough free disk space \ n " + E.ExtendedInformations ( ) ) ; // this is an expected error } catch ( NoWritePermissionError E ) { messagebox ( " you don \ 't have write permission in that directory \ n " + E.ExtendedInformations ( ) ) ; // this is an expected error } catch ( DirDoesntExistError E ) { messagebox ( " the directory you chose doesn \ 't exist \ n " + E.ExtendedInfo ( ) ) ; // this is an expected error } catch ( ... ) { messagebox ( " an unexpected error occured " ) ; // this is where the unexpected errors are handled } you try to do some stuff and if something goes bad , the codes throw an exception , which can be caught by the error-handlers .
and if there is no error handler for the error , then this is an unexpected error .
this would crash the program , unless you do catch ( ... ) , which can also catch unknown exception types well , in redmond it goes more like this ( see MSDN ) if ( ! command1 ) { switch ( ERRNO ) { case 1 : messagebox ( " Error code 1 , contact your vendor " ) ; break ; case 2 : messagebox ( " Error code 2 " ) ; break ; default : messagebox ( " unexpected error " ) ; } } else { if ( ! command2 ) { switch ( ERRNO ) { case 2 : messagebox ( " Error code 2 " ) ; break ; case 3 : messagebox ( " Error code 3 , press F1 to see some useless hexadecimal bytes " ) ; break ; default : messagebox ( " unexpected error " ) ; } } else { if ( ! command3 ) { switch ( ERRNO ) { case 1 : messagebox ( " Error code 1 , contact your vendor " ) ; break ; case 4 : messagebox ( " Error code 4 , why don \ 't you switch to linux ?
" ) ; break ; default : messagebox ( " unexpected error " ) ; } } else { // wohoo , nothing went bad !
} } } if something goes bad , a global variable ( ERRNO ) is set to some error code and the functions return false .
the default case takes all the values of ERRNO , that are not handled explicitly Yes , this is prehistoric and non-thread-safe error handling , but what do you expect from the masters of disaster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is simple.
Error handling basically works like this 
try {
command1
command2
command3
}
catch(DiskFullError E) {
   messagebox("not enough free disk space\n"+E.ExtendedInformations()); // this is an expected error 
}
catch(NoWritePermissionError E) {
   messagebox("you don\'t have write permission in that directory\n"+E.ExtendedInformations()); // this is an expected error 
}
catch(DirDoesntExistError E) {
   messagebox("the directory you chose doesn\'t exist\n"+E.ExtendedInfo()); // this is an expected error 
}
catch(...) {
   messagebox("an unexpected error occured"); // this is where the unexpected errors are handled 
}
 
you try to do some stuff and if something goes bad, the codes throw an exception, which can be caught by the error-handlers.
and if there is no error handler for the error, then this is an unexpected error.
this would crash the program, unless you do catch(...), which can also catch unknown exception types
well, in redmond it goes more like this (see MSDN) 
if(!command1) {
switch(ERRNO) {
   case 1: messagebox("Error code 1, contact your vendor"); break;
   case 2: messagebox("Error code 2"); break;
   default: messagebox("unexpected error");
}
}else {
if(!command2) {
switch(ERRNO) {
   case 2: messagebox("Error code 2"); break;
   case 3: messagebox("Error code 3, press F1 to see some useless hexadecimal bytes"); break;
   default: messagebox("unexpected error");
}
} else {
if(!command3) {
switch(ERRNO){
   case 1: messagebox("Error code 1, contact your vendor"); break;
   case 4: messagebox("Error code 4, why don\'t you switch to linux?
"); break;
   default: messagebox("unexpected error");
}
} else { // wohoo, nothing went bad!
}
}
}
 
if something goes bad, a global variable (ERRNO) is set to some error code and the functions return false.
the default case takes all the values of ERRNO, that are not handled explicitly
 Yes, this is prehistoric and non-thread-safe error handling, but what do you expect from the masters of disaster?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429626</id>
	<title>"...or what will happen when it does."</title>
	<author>boneglorious</author>
	<datestamp>1260794520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Explosions! MWA HA HA HA HA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explosions !
MWA HA HA HA HA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explosions!
MWA HA HA HA HA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428916</id>
	<title>Re:Design Choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260782640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you can allow other word installs to open the file, so it has to be external (or at least available to the 'public'), well beyond the target audience...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you can allow other word installs to open the file , so it has to be external ( or at least available to the 'public ' ) , well beyond the target audience.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you can allow other word installs to open the file, so it has to be external (or at least available to the 'public'), well beyond the target audience...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429948</id>
	<title>Disillusioned</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1260799140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who call themselves "I don't believe in intellectual property" and make that text link to the EFF obviously misunderstand the purpose of the EFF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who call themselves " I do n't believe in intellectual property " and make that text link to the EFF obviously misunderstand the purpose of the EFF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who call themselves "I don't believe in intellectual property" and make that text link to the EFF obviously misunderstand the purpose of the EFF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</id>
	<title>Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>SpacePunk</author>
	<datestamp>1260781320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article...<br>"Office 2003 users receive the error, "Unexpected error occurred. Please try again later or contact your system administrator,""</p><p>WTF?  Is there anyone out there that can point me to an expected error?  Can these wannabe programmer motherfuckers ever pass on real information on an error to the end user?  Their error messages might as well say, "Our program fucked up, we're dipshits, we don't know what the fuck is going on.  In fact, we couldn't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk, or high."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article... " Office 2003 users receive the error , " Unexpected error occurred .
Please try again later or contact your system administrator , " " WTF ?
Is there anyone out there that can point me to an expected error ?
Can these wannabe programmer motherfuckers ever pass on real information on an error to the end user ?
Their error messages might as well say , " Our program fucked up , we 're dipshits , we do n't know what the fuck is going on .
In fact , we could n't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk , or high .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article..."Office 2003 users receive the error, "Unexpected error occurred.
Please try again later or contact your system administrator,""WTF?
Is there anyone out there that can point me to an expected error?
Can these wannabe programmer motherfuckers ever pass on real information on an error to the end user?
Their error messages might as well say, "Our program fucked up, we're dipshits, we don't know what the fuck is going on.
In fact, we couldn't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk, or high.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431942</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260810360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm. By the sound of it, you hate badly written exceptions. Exception handling is a good way to keep code nice and clean, particularly if you are doing object oriented coding. It is really tempting for someone who has no idea of what they are doing to use a generic "catch" instead of properly handling the exception. This sounds like what Microsoft is doing, which should come as no surprise.</p><p>I've never yet seen a programming text book that talked about exceptions that did not make it clear that using a single catch-all statement was bad.</p><p>If you really want the piece of code that throws the exception to handle it then you have to pass a lot of stuff to every function that can generate an exceptional state. Stuff that it really shouldn't be having to deal with. This is uncool, not clean, cumbersome, requires extra code and is generally a PITA.</p><p>Allowing an exception to be thrown so that the higher level code that knows the overall context and can determine if the exception can be handled transparently (pass over a parsing error) or show the user a dialog (which also requires GUI context) is much better than trying to shove all that information and intelligence down into every object or function call.</p><p>Decent exception handling also uses a class that allows handling to be transparently handled based on execution context (e.g., commandline vs gui) without having to write innumerable cases throughout the code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm .
By the sound of it , you hate badly written exceptions .
Exception handling is a good way to keep code nice and clean , particularly if you are doing object oriented coding .
It is really tempting for someone who has no idea of what they are doing to use a generic " catch " instead of properly handling the exception .
This sounds like what Microsoft is doing , which should come as no surprise.I 've never yet seen a programming text book that talked about exceptions that did not make it clear that using a single catch-all statement was bad.If you really want the piece of code that throws the exception to handle it then you have to pass a lot of stuff to every function that can generate an exceptional state .
Stuff that it really should n't be having to deal with .
This is uncool , not clean , cumbersome , requires extra code and is generally a PITA.Allowing an exception to be thrown so that the higher level code that knows the overall context and can determine if the exception can be handled transparently ( pass over a parsing error ) or show the user a dialog ( which also requires GUI context ) is much better than trying to shove all that information and intelligence down into every object or function call.Decent exception handling also uses a class that allows handling to be transparently handled based on execution context ( e.g. , commandline vs gui ) without having to write innumerable cases throughout the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm.
By the sound of it, you hate badly written exceptions.
Exception handling is a good way to keep code nice and clean, particularly if you are doing object oriented coding.
It is really tempting for someone who has no idea of what they are doing to use a generic "catch" instead of properly handling the exception.
This sounds like what Microsoft is doing, which should come as no surprise.I've never yet seen a programming text book that talked about exceptions that did not make it clear that using a single catch-all statement was bad.If you really want the piece of code that throws the exception to handle it then you have to pass a lot of stuff to every function that can generate an exceptional state.
Stuff that it really shouldn't be having to deal with.
This is uncool, not clean, cumbersome, requires extra code and is generally a PITA.Allowing an exception to be thrown so that the higher level code that knows the overall context and can determine if the exception can be handled transparently (pass over a parsing error) or show the user a dialog (which also requires GUI context) is much better than trying to shove all that information and intelligence down into every object or function call.Decent exception handling also uses a class that allows handling to be transparently handled based on execution context (e.g., commandline vs gui) without having to write innumerable cases throughout the code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431114</id>
	<title>Re:Tag: Not a bug, defective by design.</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1260806880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see it also as a friendly reminder of what Microsoft can do if you piss them off.  Remember, Microsoft has always acted as if they own your computer.</p><p>"Just remember... if the 800-pound monkeyboy gets upset, he can make all your files go bye-bye.  You never know when we might 'forget' to renew our certificates.  Now pay up real nice and no one gets hurt."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it also as a friendly reminder of what Microsoft can do if you piss them off .
Remember , Microsoft has always acted as if they own your computer .
" Just remember... if the 800-pound monkeyboy gets upset , he can make all your files go bye-bye .
You never know when we might 'forget ' to renew our certificates .
Now pay up real nice and no one gets hurt .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it also as a friendly reminder of what Microsoft can do if you piss them off.
Remember, Microsoft has always acted as if they own your computer.
"Just remember... if the 800-pound monkeyboy gets upset, he can make all your files go bye-bye.
You never know when we might 'forget' to renew our certificates.
Now pay up real nice and no one gets hurt.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429472</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1260791940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait till you get a phone call asking you what to do with that box, for the third time, today, from the same person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait till you get a phone call asking you what to do with that box , for the third time , today , from the same person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait till you get a phone call asking you what to do with that box, for the third time, today, from the same person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429064</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1260785160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Is there anyone out there that can point me to an expected error?</i> <br> <br>
What's worse is that insulting little click-box that sits there jeering at you saying [OK]<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...when as we all know, the correct response is "No, it's NOT fucking OK, you dipshit."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anyone out there that can point me to an expected error ?
What 's worse is that insulting little click-box that sits there jeering at you saying [ OK ] ...when as we all know , the correct response is " No , it 's NOT fucking OK , you dipshit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anyone out there that can point me to an expected error?
What's worse is that insulting little click-box that sits there jeering at you saying [OK]  ...when as we all know, the correct response is "No, it's NOT fucking OK, you dipshit.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428898</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Sparx139</author>
	<datestamp>1260782400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In fact, we couldn't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk, or high."</p></div><p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/323/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">Or maybe they weren't drunk enough</a> [xkcd.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , we could n't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk , or high .
" Or maybe they were n't drunk enough [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In fact, we couldn't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk, or high.
" Or maybe they weren't drunk enough [xkcd.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429718</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Up Or Forced Upgrade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free add-on for Word/Excel/PP 2007 that adds the Office 2003 "Classic" buttons to the left most ribbon tab:<br>http://pschmid.net/office2007/ribboncustomizer/index.php</p><p>It does more too but it's small, quick to install, and you get that "Oh my gosh I love you!" from your users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free add-on for Word/Excel/PP 2007 that adds the Office 2003 " Classic " buttons to the left most ribbon tab : http : //pschmid.net/office2007/ribboncustomizer/index.phpIt does more too but it 's small , quick to install , and you get that " Oh my gosh I love you !
" from your users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free add-on for Word/Excel/PP 2007 that adds the Office 2003 "Classic" buttons to the left most ribbon tab:http://pschmid.net/office2007/ribboncustomizer/index.phpIt does more too but it's small, quick to install, and you get that "Oh my gosh I love you!
" from your users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430318</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievable</title>
	<author>carnicer</author>
	<datestamp>1260802320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why? it's these people who decide to put their work and information on a product to which they have no control. it's not microsoft to blame, it's the customers and (unforced) users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why ?
it 's these people who decide to put their work and information on a product to which they have no control .
it 's not microsoft to blame , it 's the customers and ( unforced ) users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why?
it's these people who decide to put their work and information on a product to which they have no control.
it's not microsoft to blame, it's the customers and (unforced) users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428846</id>
	<title>Re:Locks OUT!?</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1260781740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the fuck enables the "copy protection" feature in every-day office work? Most normal users don't even know it's an option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the fuck enables the " copy protection " feature in every-day office work ?
Most normal users do n't even know it 's an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the fuck enables the "copy protection" feature in every-day office work?
Most normal users don't even know it's an option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260781980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know it's unlikely, but this is a what-if.</p><p>Would you trust it to OpenOffice? Why? Couldn't it hold your files for ransom too? It couldn't? Because the source is open you say? Having the source out there before the fact didn't help <a href="http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2009/12/malware-found-in-screensaver-for-ubuntu.html" title="omgubuntu.co.uk" rel="nofollow">in that case</a> [omgubuntu.co.uk], so why would it help in this case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DISCLAIMER : Yes , I know it 's unlikely , but this is a what-if.Would you trust it to OpenOffice ?
Why ? Could n't it hold your files for ransom too ?
It could n't ?
Because the source is open you say ?
Having the source out there before the fact did n't help in that case [ omgubuntu.co.uk ] , so why would it help in this case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know it's unlikely, but this is a what-if.Would you trust it to OpenOffice?
Why? Couldn't it hold your files for ransom too?
It couldn't?
Because the source is open you say?
Having the source out there before the fact didn't help in that case [omgubuntu.co.uk], so why would it help in this case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428822</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Up Or Forced Upgrade?</title>
	<author>Afforess</author>
	<datestamp>1260781380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Works" is in quotations, mainly because the whole point of the article is that Office 2003 DOESN'T work anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Works " is in quotations , mainly because the whole point of the article is that Office 2003 DOES N'T work anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Works" is in quotations, mainly because the whole point of the article is that Office 2003 DOESN'T work anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429270</id>
	<title>Re:Locks OUT!?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1260788640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Who the fuck enables the "copy protection" feature in every-day office work?</p></div></blockquote><p>The government?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the fuck enables the " copy protection " feature in every-day office work ? The government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the fuck enables the "copy protection" feature in every-day office work?The government?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429912</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260798600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1)Remove MS Office<br>
2)Download OO Office<br>
3)Install OO Office<br>
4)Enjoy an excellent free office suite that's just as powerful and if say so on my own opinion more user friendly!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Remove MS Office 2 ) Download OO Office 3 ) Install OO Office 4 ) Enjoy an excellent free office suite that 's just as powerful and if say so on my own opinion more user friendly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1)Remove MS Office
2)Download OO Office
3)Install OO Office
4)Enjoy an excellent free office suite that's just as powerful and if say so on my own opinion more user friendly!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30432382</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Up Or Forced Upgrade?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260812700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Some people are too cheap to upgrade when the old copy still "works"</i></p><p>There's some bias showing there, spendthrift. Why put quotes around "works"? If the copy you are using serves your needs, and there are no new features in the new version that would make things easier for you, why in the world would you spend the money <b>and have to relearn the program you are used to and comfortable with</b> with no added benefit?</p><p>IMO that would be worse than a waste of money, and wasting money alone is stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people are too cheap to upgrade when the old copy still " works " There 's some bias showing there , spendthrift .
Why put quotes around " works " ?
If the copy you are using serves your needs , and there are no new features in the new version that would make things easier for you , why in the world would you spend the money and have to relearn the program you are used to and comfortable with with no added benefit ? IMO that would be worse than a waste of money , and wasting money alone is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people are too cheap to upgrade when the old copy still "works"There's some bias showing there, spendthrift.
Why put quotes around "works"?
If the copy you are using serves your needs, and there are no new features in the new version that would make things easier for you, why in the world would you spend the money and have to relearn the program you are used to and comfortable with with no added benefit?IMO that would be worse than a waste of money, and wasting money alone is stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654</id>
	<title>Screw Up Or Forced Upgrade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260822300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know a LOT of people still using MS Office 2003. Some people dislike the Ribbon System with '07's version. Some people are too cheap to upgrade when the old copy still "works". Now, Microsoft isn't making any money from all those old copies of 2003, so what's stop them from "Programming Obsolescence" into their software?<br> <br>
It sounds a bit sinister, yes; but it's not technically illegal. It might even be in the oft-skimmed EULA. Or maybe it's just similar to the way HP printers always fail a week after the warranty expires.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a LOT of people still using MS Office 2003 .
Some people dislike the Ribbon System with '07 's version .
Some people are too cheap to upgrade when the old copy still " works " .
Now , Microsoft is n't making any money from all those old copies of 2003 , so what 's stop them from " Programming Obsolescence " into their software ?
It sounds a bit sinister , yes ; but it 's not technically illegal .
It might even be in the oft-skimmed EULA .
Or maybe it 's just similar to the way HP printers always fail a week after the warranty expires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a LOT of people still using MS Office 2003.
Some people dislike the Ribbon System with '07's version.
Some people are too cheap to upgrade when the old copy still "works".
Now, Microsoft isn't making any money from all those old copies of 2003, so what's stop them from "Programming Obsolescence" into their software?
It sounds a bit sinister, yes; but it's not technically illegal.
It might even be in the oft-skimmed EULA.
Or maybe it's just similar to the way HP printers always fail a week after the warranty expires.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429632</id>
	<title>certificate expired throw error</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1260794580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>I blame this kind of error messages on programmers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</i>"<br> <br>
I blame the people who designed a system where an expired certificate throws up such an error msg<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I blame this kind of error messages on programmers .. " I blame the people who designed a system where an expired certificate throws up such an error msg .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I blame this kind of error messages on programmers .." 
I blame the people who designed a system where an expired certificate throws up such an error msg ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430232</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Rufty</author>
	<datestamp>1260801660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/error.jpg" title="technabob.com">Better error.</a> [technabob.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better error .
[ technabob.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better error.
[technabob.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429338</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Every</b> error message that Microsoft has ever written is like this.</p><p>Sometimes they think to include a way of getting the full error in proper technical language across - maybe by writing to the event log or having a "click for technical details" option but more often than not they don't.  As a Unix admin, it's immensely frustrating dealing with software which goes so far out of its way to be opaque.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every error message that Microsoft has ever written is like this.Sometimes they think to include a way of getting the full error in proper technical language across - maybe by writing to the event log or having a " click for technical details " option but more often than not they do n't .
As a Unix admin , it 's immensely frustrating dealing with software which goes so far out of its way to be opaque .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every error message that Microsoft has ever written is like this.Sometimes they think to include a way of getting the full error in proper technical language across - maybe by writing to the event log or having a "click for technical details" option but more often than not they don't.
As a Unix admin, it's immensely frustrating dealing with software which goes so far out of its way to be opaque.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428960</id>
	<title>Re:amazing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260783300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Having the source out there before the fact didn't help in that case, so why would it help in this case?</i></p><p>So having a binary package uploaded by a third party, not compiled by trusted developers proves that source doesn't help? Perhaps if it was a compiled app, with source available, pushed by a trusted source rather then a website that allows anyone to upload anything you would have a point...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having the source out there before the fact did n't help in that case , so why would it help in this case ? So having a binary package uploaded by a third party , not compiled by trusted developers proves that source does n't help ?
Perhaps if it was a compiled app , with source available , pushed by a trusted source rather then a website that allows anyone to upload anything you would have a point.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having the source out there before the fact didn't help in that case, so why would it help in this case?So having a binary package uploaded by a third party, not compiled by trusted developers proves that source doesn't help?
Perhaps if it was a compiled app, with source available, pushed by a trusted source rather then a website that allows anyone to upload anything you would have a point...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430246</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected error?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1260801720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I hate exceptions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Are there no circumstance in which their use would be acceptable?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate exceptions.Are there no circumstance in which their use would be acceptable ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate exceptions.Are there no circumstance in which their use would be acceptable?
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429072</id>
	<title>Thats why I am NOT an early adopter</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1260785280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that I know that this won't affect the Isolated Basement Department, I can now safely install Office 2003...</p><p>Receipt, check. Shrinkwrap off, check. Must keep original box...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that I know that this wo n't affect the Isolated Basement Department , I can now safely install Office 2003...Receipt , check .
Shrinkwrap off , check .
Must keep original box.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that I know that this won't affect the Isolated Basement Department, I can now safely install Office 2003...Receipt, check.
Shrinkwrap off, check.
Must keep original box...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30433684</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Up Or Forced Upgrade?</title>
	<author>danomac</author>
	<datestamp>1260818820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am the IT Administrator where I work. We have staff here of all types, computer-savvy ones to the completely clueless ones. We generally have more of the latter.<br> <br>

We did a trial using 2007. I determined that the cost of retraining the clueless staff was far higher than any perceived benefit the software might have. We purchase 2007 licenses and use our downgrade rights to install 2003 and make sure the compatibility pack is installed on all workstations.<br> <br>

Office 2007 for our agency is not even on the radar due to it's ribbon system. If we could turn it off or have a "classic" mode we might consider the move. We've not had any issues with the compatibility pack, even with Excel 2007 sheets with complex macros and formulas.<br> <br>

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the IT Administrator where I work .
We have staff here of all types , computer-savvy ones to the completely clueless ones .
We generally have more of the latter .
We did a trial using 2007 .
I determined that the cost of retraining the clueless staff was far higher than any perceived benefit the software might have .
We purchase 2007 licenses and use our downgrade rights to install 2003 and make sure the compatibility pack is installed on all workstations .
Office 2007 for our agency is not even on the radar due to it 's ribbon system .
If we could turn it off or have a " classic " mode we might consider the move .
We 've not had any issues with the compatibility pack , even with Excel 2007 sheets with complex macros and formulas .
If it ai n't broke , do n't fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the IT Administrator where I work.
We have staff here of all types, computer-savvy ones to the completely clueless ones.
We generally have more of the latter.
We did a trial using 2007.
I determined that the cost of retraining the clueless staff was far higher than any perceived benefit the software might have.
We purchase 2007 licenses and use our downgrade rights to install 2003 and make sure the compatibility pack is installed on all workstations.
Office 2007 for our agency is not even on the radar due to it's ribbon system.
If we could turn it off or have a "classic" mode we might consider the move.
We've not had any issues with the compatibility pack, even with Excel 2007 sheets with complex macros and formulas.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428742</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30433354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30440210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30432868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30436710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30432382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30433684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0111204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30442406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0111204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0111204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30433684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30432382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0111204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30436710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30440210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30433354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0111204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30442406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0111204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0111204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30430318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30432868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0111204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30429270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0111204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30431114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0111204.30428998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
