<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_17_1314226</id>
	<title>Autonomous Intelligent Botnets Bouncing Back</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1261059660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coomaria writes <i>"Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died?  Well, think again: compromised computers were responsible for distributing 83.4\% of the 107 billion spam messages sent around the world <a href="http://www.daniweb.com/news/story247108.html">every single day this year</a>, and it's going to get worse if intelligent and autonomous botnets arrive in 2010 as predicted."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coomaria writes " Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died ?
Well , think again : compromised computers were responsible for distributing 83.4 \ % of the 107 billion spam messages sent around the world every single day this year , and it 's going to get worse if intelligent and autonomous botnets arrive in 2010 as predicted .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coomaria writes "Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died?
Well, think again: compromised computers were responsible for distributing 83.4\% of the 107 billion spam messages sent around the world every single day this year, and it's going to get worse if intelligent and autonomous botnets arrive in 2010 as predicted.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30478408</id>
	<title>Re:Judgment Day</title>
	<author>Stick32</author>
	<datestamp>1261041900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>April 19, 2010, 16:30. SkyNet becomes self-aware. One minute later, SkyNet realizes he's just a world-wide spambot. Nine milliseconds later, SkyNet terminates itself.</p><p>And there was much rejoicing.</p></div><p>Actually it would probably go down more like:
April 19, 2010, 16:30. SkyNet becomes self-aware. One minute later, SkyNet floods itself with offers of cheap meds and penis enhancement offers. Nine milliseconds later, SkyNet realizes how annoying that is and self terminates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>April 19 , 2010 , 16 : 30 .
SkyNet becomes self-aware .
One minute later , SkyNet realizes he 's just a world-wide spambot .
Nine milliseconds later , SkyNet terminates itself.And there was much rejoicing.Actually it would probably go down more like : April 19 , 2010 , 16 : 30 .
SkyNet becomes self-aware .
One minute later , SkyNet floods itself with offers of cheap meds and penis enhancement offers .
Nine milliseconds later , SkyNet realizes how annoying that is and self terminates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>April 19, 2010, 16:30.
SkyNet becomes self-aware.
One minute later, SkyNet realizes he's just a world-wide spambot.
Nine milliseconds later, SkyNet terminates itself.And there was much rejoicing.Actually it would probably go down more like:
April 19, 2010, 16:30.
SkyNet becomes self-aware.
One minute later, SkyNet floods itself with offers of cheap meds and penis enhancement offers.
Nine milliseconds later, SkyNet realizes how annoying that is and self terminates.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473598</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1261066440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is more testament to the damage that can be done by poorly trained users <i>on any system</i>, no matter how secure.</p><p>Windows is still somewhat responsible here, mainly because using Windows is what made these users so poorly trained in the first place. It engenders this user attitude that installing crappy toy applications downloaded from random websites a reasonable thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is more testament to the damage that can be done by poorly trained users on any system , no matter how secure.Windows is still somewhat responsible here , mainly because using Windows is what made these users so poorly trained in the first place .
It engenders this user attitude that installing crappy toy applications downloaded from random websites a reasonable thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is more testament to the damage that can be done by poorly trained users on any system, no matter how secure.Windows is still somewhat responsible here, mainly because using Windows is what made these users so poorly trained in the first place.
It engenders this user attitude that installing crappy toy applications downloaded from random websites a reasonable thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473824</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>ciaohound</author>
	<datestamp>1261067280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20! is indeed more efficient than listing 20*19*18*17...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 !
is indeed more efficient than listing 20 * 19 * 18 * 17.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20!
is indeed more efficient than listing 20*19*18*17...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473140</id>
	<title>Of that</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1261064400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
88.2486\% of the 208.7876 billion spams sent during the last fiscal year sent from IP ranges whose numerical sum exceeds 121.1156i8...
</p><p>
Eh fuck the bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>88.2486 \ % of the 208.7876 billion spams sent during the last fiscal year sent from IP ranges whose numerical sum exceeds 121.1156i8.. . Eh fuck the bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
88.2486\% of the 208.7876 billion spams sent during the last fiscal year sent from IP ranges whose numerical sum exceeds 121.1156i8...

Eh fuck the bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474302</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>ZeroExistenZ</author>
	<datestamp>1261069140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Appearantly slashdot has a check on lenght of lines.</p><p>Here's a first throw at a list: <a href="http://pastebin.com/f47497236" title="pastebin.com">Slashdot reference guide</a> [pastebin.com]</p><p>A small exert, feel free to add:</p><p>20. Imagine a<br>21. Beowulf cluster of those<br>22. [NO CARRIER]<br>23. Warning! Do not {0} into {2} with remaining {3}!<br>24. insensitive clod<br>25. defective by design<br>26. real girl<br>27. girlfriend<br>28. general reference to not having a girlfriend<br>29. disputing claim of having a real girlfriend<br>30. elaboration on the personal meaning of mentioned "girlfriend"<br>31. residence reference to basement<br>32. residence reference to attic<br>33. reference to lack of sex<br>34. reference to abundance of sex<br>35. drowning argument of lack of sex with porn reference<br>36. pointing out girls become women<br>37. elaboration on divorce<br>38. elaboration on advantages of divorce<br>39. elaboration on advantages of marriage<br>40. romantic declaration<br>41. mocking of romance<br>42. a real girl<br>43. reference to masturbating old men<br>44. link to porn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Appearantly slashdot has a check on lenght of lines.Here 's a first throw at a list : Slashdot reference guide [ pastebin.com ] A small exert , feel free to add : 20 .
Imagine a21 .
Beowulf cluster of those22 .
[ NO CARRIER ] 23 .
Warning ! Do not { 0 } into { 2 } with remaining { 3 } ! 24 .
insensitive clod25 .
defective by design26 .
real girl27 .
girlfriend28. general reference to not having a girlfriend29 .
disputing claim of having a real girlfriend30 .
elaboration on the personal meaning of mentioned " girlfriend " 31. residence reference to basement32 .
residence reference to attic33 .
reference to lack of sex34 .
reference to abundance of sex35 .
drowning argument of lack of sex with porn reference36 .
pointing out girls become women37 .
elaboration on divorce38 .
elaboration on advantages of divorce39 .
elaboration on advantages of marriage40 .
romantic declaration41 .
mocking of romance42 .
a real girl43 .
reference to masturbating old men44 .
link to porn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Appearantly slashdot has a check on lenght of lines.Here's a first throw at a list: Slashdot reference guide [pastebin.com]A small exert, feel free to add:20.
Imagine a21.
Beowulf cluster of those22.
[NO CARRIER]23.
Warning! Do not {0} into {2} with remaining {3}!24.
insensitive clod25.
defective by design26.
real girl27.
girlfriend28. general reference to not having a girlfriend29.
disputing claim of having a real girlfriend30.
elaboration on the personal meaning of mentioned "girlfriend"31. residence reference to basement32.
residence reference to attic33.
reference to lack of sex34.
reference to abundance of sex35.
drowning argument of lack of sex with porn reference36.
pointing out girls become women37.
elaboration on divorce38.
elaboration on advantages of divorce39.
elaboration on advantages of marriage40.
romantic declaration41.
mocking of romance42.
a real girl43.
reference to masturbating old men44.
link to porn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473234</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261064820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but that's more a testament to the poor development practices of the GNOME project.</p></div><p>Its actually more a testament to the fact that malware can be written for any OS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but that 's more a testament to the poor development practices of the GNOME project.Its actually more a testament to the fact that malware can be written for any OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but that's more a testament to the poor development practices of the GNOME project.Its actually more a testament to the fact that malware can be written for any OS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473270</id>
	<title>What I really want to know:</title>
	<author>Mattskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1261064940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much money does this generate for the spammers worldwide and the demographics of those that respond to spam email. My guess: not mensa members.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much money does this generate for the spammers worldwide and the demographics of those that respond to spam email .
My guess : not mensa members .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much money does this generate for the spammers worldwide and the demographics of those that respond to spam email.
My guess: not mensa members.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475206</id>
	<title>(plus one Inform4tive)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261072860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But with2 Netcraft by simple fucdking Erosion of user</htmltext>
<tokenext>But with2 Netcraft by simple fucdking Erosion of user</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But with2 Netcraft by simple fucdking Erosion of user</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474568</id>
	<title>OK</title>
	<author>Kc\_spot</author>
	<datestamp>1261070340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Botnets... are those the annoying things that post every other second saying useless things on my favorite forums? or those guys who A. scalp for emails and, when they get them, B. send stupid e-mails about "male enhancement"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Botnets... are those the annoying things that post every other second saying useless things on my favorite forums ?
or those guys who A. scalp for emails and , when they get them , B. send stupid e-mails about " male enhancement " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Botnets... are those the annoying things that post every other second saying useless things on my favorite forums?
or those guys who A. scalp for emails and, when they get them, B. send stupid e-mails about "male enhancement"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473382</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1261065480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be surprised if anything less then 100\% of zombies run Windows. </p><p>Think about what would be involved in setting up and maintaining a heterogeneous botnet. Why even bother?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be surprised if anything less then 100 \ % of zombies run Windows .
Think about what would be involved in setting up and maintaining a heterogeneous botnet .
Why even bother ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be surprised if anything less then 100\% of zombies run Windows.
Think about what would be involved in setting up and maintaining a heterogeneous botnet.
Why even bother?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473714</id>
	<title>Re:Judgment Day</title>
	<author>gnieboer</author>
	<datestamp>1261066860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, at least military now knows they are off the hook for causing the end of the world, the real end of the world will be launched by spammers... who knew??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least military now knows they are off the hook for causing the end of the world , the real end of the world will be launched by spammers... who knew ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least military now knows they are off the hook for causing the end of the world, the real end of the world will be launched by spammers... who knew?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473004</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261063800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows is on around 90\% of general-purpose computing devices, so I would expect at least 90\% of compromised machines would be running Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows is on around 90 \ % of general-purpose computing devices , so I would expect at least 90 \ % of compromised machines would be running Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows is on around 90\% of general-purpose computing devices, so I would expect at least 90\% of compromised machines would be running Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475276</id>
	<title>UAC and sandboxing</title>
	<author>snooo53</author>
	<datestamp>1261073220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well that's what UAC was supposed to do, but UAC is crap.  Not because it isn't a step in the right direction, but because most if not all major 3rd party software REQUIRES the user to grant them access to even install.  People don't know the risks they're taking by clicking allow, but what alternative do they have?  All it ends up is being a nuisance.  It's a good thought, but you can't realistically solve the problem either by restricting access, or by simply warning people.  The only clear solution I see to this is to sandbox every application at runtime, give it read access to certain necessary system files, and the user gets the option of giving it access to anything else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's what UAC was supposed to do , but UAC is crap .
Not because it is n't a step in the right direction , but because most if not all major 3rd party software REQUIRES the user to grant them access to even install .
People do n't know the risks they 're taking by clicking allow , but what alternative do they have ?
All it ends up is being a nuisance .
It 's a good thought , but you ca n't realistically solve the problem either by restricting access , or by simply warning people .
The only clear solution I see to this is to sandbox every application at runtime , give it read access to certain necessary system files , and the user gets the option of giving it access to anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's what UAC was supposed to do, but UAC is crap.
Not because it isn't a step in the right direction, but because most if not all major 3rd party software REQUIRES the user to grant them access to even install.
People don't know the risks they're taking by clicking allow, but what alternative do they have?
All it ends up is being a nuisance.
It's a good thought, but you can't realistically solve the problem either by restricting access, or by simply warning people.
The only clear solution I see to this is to sandbox every application at runtime, give it read access to certain necessary system files, and the user gets the option of giving it access to anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473086</id>
	<title>"Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died?"</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261064160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? Did I miss something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Did I miss something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Did I miss something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30478810</id>
	<title>Re:Judgment Day</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1261043400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us were kept alive, to work... loading diet pills into Nigerian officials. The... enlargement.... units ran night and day.  We were that close to going out forever. But there was one man who taught us to fight, to storm the wire of the call centres, to smash those fat burning *****s into junk. He turned it around. He brought us back from the brink.</p><p>His name is Markov. Andrey Markov.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us were kept alive , to work... loading diet pills into Nigerian officials .
The... enlargement.... units ran night and day .
We were that close to going out forever .
But there was one man who taught us to fight , to storm the wire of the call centres , to smash those fat burning * * * * * s into junk .
He turned it around .
He brought us back from the brink.His name is Markov .
Andrey Markov .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us were kept alive, to work... loading diet pills into Nigerian officials.
The... enlargement.... units ran night and day.
We were that close to going out forever.
But there was one man who taught us to fight, to storm the wire of the call centres, to smash those fat burning *****s into junk.
He turned it around.
He brought us back from the brink.His name is Markov.
Andrey Markov.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475412</id>
	<title>Re:"intelligent and autonomous": yeah, right.</title>
	<author>FreelanceWizard</author>
	<datestamp>1261073880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worms and viruses fall into certain definitions of "autonomous software agents," and there have been some that have uninstalled their opposition. Welchia is a modern example and the source of some ethical arguments over on BUGTRAQ.</p><p>Let the worm wars begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worms and viruses fall into certain definitions of " autonomous software agents , " and there have been some that have uninstalled their opposition .
Welchia is a modern example and the source of some ethical arguments over on BUGTRAQ.Let the worm wars begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worms and viruses fall into certain definitions of "autonomous software agents," and there have been some that have uninstalled their opposition.
Welchia is a modern example and the source of some ethical arguments over on BUGTRAQ.Let the worm wars begin!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475548</id>
	<title>Not MY machine</title>
	<author>Nonillion</author>
	<datestamp>1261074420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I for one can say my machine is NOT part of this problem. The users of these "compromised" machines are merely appliance operators, and couldn't secure their machines no matter what OS they run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I for one can say my machine is NOT part of this problem .
The users of these " compromised " machines are merely appliance operators , and could n't secure their machines no matter what OS they run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I for one can say my machine is NOT part of this problem.
The users of these "compromised" machines are merely appliance operators, and couldn't secure their machines no matter what OS they run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473404</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1261065600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sum of your arguments is 131. As a palindrome, I call your argument circular and self-referencing, which are logical fallacies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sum of your arguments is 131 .
As a palindrome , I call your argument circular and self-referencing , which are logical fallacies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sum of your arguments is 131.
As a palindrome, I call your argument circular and self-referencing, which are logical fallacies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473624</id>
	<title>ISP apathy?</title>
	<author>zarmanto</author>
	<datestamp>1261066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never entirely understood how this problem could be allowed to escalate to the levels we have today. If the statistics that we're always seeing on the bandwidth consumption of spam (and of botnets in general) and the inherent overhead costs associated with that consumption are anywhere close to reality, it seems rather obvious to me that ISPs around the world would have a vested interest in shutting down the botnets on their networks! I mean seriously, folks... let's ignore all of the legislative issues which supposedly prevent them from being able to take action on their own, and just look at the options they'd have if they actually bothered to think about the problem for more than two seconds:  For example, if an ISP tasked their phone based tech support staff with spending even as little as ten percent of their time making calls to customers with systems suspected of being compromised, they would probably be able to kill off the lion share of botnet infected systems, simply by informing those customers that there's a problem with their computer which needs to be fixed! Granted, they would probably have a small percentage of false positives, likely in the form of people who are knowingly using P2P clients or something like that... but isn't the benefit of making more bandwidth available for practically everything else (and of course, killing a big chunk of that overhead cost in the process) worth briefly annoying those few people downloading porn or Linux ISOs?</p><p>Well... okay; maybe it's more than a few, since I went and lumped porn users in there..... but still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never entirely understood how this problem could be allowed to escalate to the levels we have today .
If the statistics that we 're always seeing on the bandwidth consumption of spam ( and of botnets in general ) and the inherent overhead costs associated with that consumption are anywhere close to reality , it seems rather obvious to me that ISPs around the world would have a vested interest in shutting down the botnets on their networks !
I mean seriously , folks... let 's ignore all of the legislative issues which supposedly prevent them from being able to take action on their own , and just look at the options they 'd have if they actually bothered to think about the problem for more than two seconds : For example , if an ISP tasked their phone based tech support staff with spending even as little as ten percent of their time making calls to customers with systems suspected of being compromised , they would probably be able to kill off the lion share of botnet infected systems , simply by informing those customers that there 's a problem with their computer which needs to be fixed !
Granted , they would probably have a small percentage of false positives , likely in the form of people who are knowingly using P2P clients or something like that... but is n't the benefit of making more bandwidth available for practically everything else ( and of course , killing a big chunk of that overhead cost in the process ) worth briefly annoying those few people downloading porn or Linux ISOs ? Well... okay ; maybe it 's more than a few , since I went and lumped porn users in there..... but still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never entirely understood how this problem could be allowed to escalate to the levels we have today.
If the statistics that we're always seeing on the bandwidth consumption of spam (and of botnets in general) and the inherent overhead costs associated with that consumption are anywhere close to reality, it seems rather obvious to me that ISPs around the world would have a vested interest in shutting down the botnets on their networks!
I mean seriously, folks... let's ignore all of the legislative issues which supposedly prevent them from being able to take action on their own, and just look at the options they'd have if they actually bothered to think about the problem for more than two seconds:  For example, if an ISP tasked their phone based tech support staff with spending even as little as ten percent of their time making calls to customers with systems suspected of being compromised, they would probably be able to kill off the lion share of botnet infected systems, simply by informing those customers that there's a problem with their computer which needs to be fixed!
Granted, they would probably have a small percentage of false positives, likely in the form of people who are knowingly using P2P clients or something like that... but isn't the benefit of making more bandwidth available for practically everything else (and of course, killing a big chunk of that overhead cost in the process) worth briefly annoying those few people downloading porn or Linux ISOs?Well... okay; maybe it's more than a few, since I went and lumped porn users in there..... but still.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473012</id>
	<title>compromised computers ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261063800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Cutwail, Mega-D, Rustock and handful of other botnets already have control of upwards of five million compromised computers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Cutwail also distributed the Bredolab Trojan dropper, disguised in the form of a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ZIP file attachment</i>"<br> <br>
What Operating System did these 'compromised computers' run on ?<br> <br>

'<i>Upon execution Bredolab attempts to inject into <a href="http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v\_187912.htm" title="nai.com" rel="nofollow">svchost.exe</a> [nai.com] processes</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cutwail , Mega-D , Rustock and handful of other botnets already have control of upwards of five million compromised computers .. Cutwail also distributed the Bredolab Trojan dropper , disguised in the form of a .ZIP file attachment " What Operating System did these 'compromised computers ' run on ?
'Upon execution Bredolab attempts to inject into svchost.exe [ nai.com ] processes . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cutwail, Mega-D, Rustock and handful of other botnets already have control of upwards of five million compromised computers .. Cutwail also distributed the Bredolab Trojan dropper, disguised in the form of a .ZIP file attachment" 
What Operating System did these 'compromised computers' run on ?
'Upon execution Bredolab attempts to inject into svchost.exe [nai.com] processes ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475718</id>
	<title>China</title>
	<author>tedgyz</author>
	<datestamp>1261075200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of these botnets are cropping up in China.  We ended up having to block entire blocks of IP ranges to stop them from probing our website.  I wonder how much of this is gov't sponsored?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of these botnets are cropping up in China .
We ended up having to block entire blocks of IP ranges to stop them from probing our website .
I wonder how much of this is gov't sponsored ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of these botnets are cropping up in China.
We ended up having to block entire blocks of IP ranges to stop them from probing our website.
I wonder how much of this is gov't sponsored?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473094</id>
	<title>2010</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261064280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The year my inbox cried.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The year my inbox cried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The year my inbox cried.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473026</id>
	<title>an advantage</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1261063860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The military would have an advantage now if they were to brodcast bunk video feeds on that channel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The military would have an advantage now if they were to brodcast bunk video feeds on that channel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The military would have an advantage now if they were to brodcast bunk video feeds on that channel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473048</id>
	<title>And this, ladies and gentlemen...</title>
	<author>Noryungi</author>
	<datestamp>1261063980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Is the reason why the U.S.A. should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now.</p><p>(Yes, I know I am going to be moderated as 'troll' for this. I don't care).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Is the reason why the U.S.A. should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan .
Now. ( Yes , I know I am going to be moderated as 'troll ' for this .
I do n't care ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Is the reason why the U.S.A. should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now.(Yes, I know I am going to be moderated as 'troll' for this.
I don't care).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473712</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1261066860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like this idea. If it could be extended to stories as well it would save even more redundancy. Just imagine...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>kdawson writes "dupe-657"</p></div><p>And the link takes you straight to the old discussion thread</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this idea .
If it could be extended to stories as well it would save even more redundancy .
Just imagine...kdawson writes " dupe-657 " And the link takes you straight to the old discussion thread</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this idea.
If it could be extended to stories as well it would save even more redundancy.
Just imagine...kdawson writes "dupe-657"And the link takes you straight to the old discussion thread
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473594</id>
	<title>Re:Judgment Day</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1261066440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>andnothingofvaluewaslost</htmltext>
<tokenext>andnothingofvaluewaslost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>andnothingofvaluewaslost</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473138</id>
	<title>Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261064400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm scared...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm scared.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm scared...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475900</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261075920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, wrong answer. The correct answer was:</p><p>"Logic is a little bird tweeting in meadow..."</p><p>Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly? Your ears are green!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , wrong answer .
The correct answer was : " Logic is a little bird tweeting in meadow... " Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly ?
Your ears are green !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, wrong answer.
The correct answer was:"Logic is a little bird tweeting in meadow..."Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly?
Your ears are green!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473928</id>
	<title>Postal Service Charge</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1261067580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>107 billion spam messages sent around the world every single day this year</p></div><p>Remember when the post office rumors went around? You know the ones where they wanted to charge 1 cent per e-mail sent?  Man - if they did that I think the post office would be the biggest, most profitable company in the world.  That comes out to 1.07 billion dollars per day.<br> <br>

For this alone I am rethinking my stance. Too bad it would be "impossible" to implement, track, and let alone charge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>107 billion spam messages sent around the world every single day this yearRemember when the post office rumors went around ?
You know the ones where they wanted to charge 1 cent per e-mail sent ?
Man - if they did that I think the post office would be the biggest , most profitable company in the world .
That comes out to 1.07 billion dollars per day .
For this alone I am rethinking my stance .
Too bad it would be " impossible " to implement , track , and let alone charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>107 billion spam messages sent around the world every single day this yearRemember when the post office rumors went around?
You know the ones where they wanted to charge 1 cent per e-mail sent?
Man - if they did that I think the post office would be the biggest, most profitable company in the world.
That comes out to 1.07 billion dollars per day.
For this alone I am rethinking my stance.
Too bad it would be "impossible" to implement, track, and let alone charge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426</id>
	<title>Judgment Day</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1261065780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>April 19, 2010, 16:30. SkyNet becomes self-aware. One minute later, SkyNet realizes he's just a world-wide spambot. Nine milliseconds later, SkyNet terminates itself.</p><p>And there was much rejoicing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>April 19 , 2010 , 16 : 30 .
SkyNet becomes self-aware .
One minute later , SkyNet realizes he 's just a world-wide spambot .
Nine milliseconds later , SkyNet terminates itself.And there was much rejoicing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>April 19, 2010, 16:30.
SkyNet becomes self-aware.
One minute later, SkyNet realizes he's just a world-wide spambot.
Nine milliseconds later, SkyNet terminates itself.And there was much rejoicing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475008</id>
	<title>It has already happened</title>
	<author>Myion</author>
	<datestamp>1261072080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The country of Nigeria is the physical manifestation of the botnet</htmltext>
<tokenext>The country of Nigeria is the physical manifestation of the botnet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The country of Nigeria is the physical manifestation of the botnet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473622</id>
	<title>Re:"intelligent and autonomous": yeah, right.</title>
	<author>metamechanical</author>
	<datestamp>1261066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just look forward to the day that the autonomous software agents become intelligent enough that they begin fighting each other.</p><p>Or even better, advertising to each other!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just look forward to the day that the autonomous software agents become intelligent enough that they begin fighting each other.Or even better , advertising to each other !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just look forward to the day that the autonomous software agents become intelligent enough that they begin fighting each other.Or even better, advertising to each other!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473366</id>
	<title>Re:"Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died?"</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1261065420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I came in here to say this. What idiots thought that botnets died? Oh, wait, I forgot that MSM sometimes pretends they can report on technology without making fools of themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I came in here to say this .
What idiots thought that botnets died ?
Oh , wait , I forgot that MSM sometimes pretends they can report on technology without making fools of themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came in here to say this.
What idiots thought that botnets died?
Oh, wait, I forgot that MSM sometimes pretends they can report on technology without making fools of themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473444</id>
	<title>Re:"Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261065840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. 2010 is "The Year We Make Contact"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
2010 is " The Year We Make Contact "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
2010 is "The Year We Make Contact"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475324</id>
	<title>Oh shit.</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1261073460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any chance all these botnets will eventually merge into one single autonomous intelligent entity, and perhaps start calling itself "SkyNet"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any chance all these botnets will eventually merge into one single autonomous intelligent entity , and perhaps start calling itself " SkyNet " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any chance all these botnets will eventually merge into one single autonomous intelligent entity, and perhaps start calling itself "SkyNet"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30478248</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261041180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that argument 22 though? that makes your argument 37.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that argument 22 though ?
that makes your argument 37 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that argument 22 though?
that makes your argument 37.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473032</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261063920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically all of them.</p><p>Even with the increase in popularity of Mac OS X and Linux, malware for those systems is virtually unheard of. There was the recent malware incident involving some GNOME screensavers, but that's more a testament to the poor development practices of the GNOME project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically all of them.Even with the increase in popularity of Mac OS X and Linux , malware for those systems is virtually unheard of .
There was the recent malware incident involving some GNOME screensavers , but that 's more a testament to the poor development practices of the GNOME project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically all of them.Even with the increase in popularity of Mac OS X and Linux, malware for those systems is virtually unheard of.
There was the recent malware incident involving some GNOME screensavers, but that's more a testament to the poor development practices of the GNOME project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474160</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261068420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would be surprised if anything less then 100\% of zombies run Windows.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/041709-first-mac-os-x-botnet.html" title="networkworld.com" rel="nofollow">Be surprised.</a> [networkworld.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be surprised if anything less then 100 \ % of zombies run Windows .
Be surprised .
[ networkworld.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be surprised if anything less then 100\% of zombies run Windows.
Be surprised.
[networkworld.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046</id>
	<title>A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261063980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot needs to create a numbered list of arguments called Slashdot's List Of Same Old Arguments (SLOSOA). Then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers can save bandwidth (and lower Taco's bills) by disputing by numerical reference to an argument, just as Mennonites are said to argue by reference chapter and verse in the Bible rather than repeating the words.</p><p>To start this New Era in Slashdot efficiency, my reply to your post, Sir, is...</p><p>19, 20! It is clear that 22, 28.</p><p>And if you don't like it, then 42.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot needs to create a numbered list of arguments called Slashdot 's List Of Same Old Arguments ( SLOSOA ) .
Then /.ers can save bandwidth ( and lower Taco 's bills ) by disputing by numerical reference to an argument , just as Mennonites are said to argue by reference chapter and verse in the Bible rather than repeating the words.To start this New Era in Slashdot efficiency , my reply to your post , Sir , is...19 , 20 !
It is clear that 22 , 28.And if you do n't like it , then 42 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot needs to create a numbered list of arguments called Slashdot's List Of Same Old Arguments (SLOSOA).
Then /.ers can save bandwidth (and lower Taco's bills) by disputing by numerical reference to an argument, just as Mennonites are said to argue by reference chapter and verse in the Bible rather than repeating the words.To start this New Era in Slashdot efficiency, my reply to your post, Sir, is...19, 20!
It is clear that 22, 28.And if you don't like it, then 42.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474768</id>
	<title>They're already intelligent</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1261071120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The botnets are already more intelligent than your average spammer; making them autonomous is a small matter of programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The botnets are already more intelligent than your average spammer ; making them autonomous is a small matter of programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The botnets are already more intelligent than your average spammer; making them autonomous is a small matter of programming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30476480</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1261078260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdot needs to create a numbered list of arguments called Slashdot's List Of Same Old Arguments (SLOSOA). Then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers can save bandwidth (and lower Taco's bills) by disputing by numerical reference to an argument, just as Mennonites are said to argue by reference chapter and verse in the Bible rather than repeating the words.</p></div><p>
Time to pull out my numbers joke.</p><p>
New guy has been hired at the Federal Penitentiary.  Old guard is taking him around showing him how to do his new job.  They're in one of the blocks and they hear an inmate yell out "23!" and a bunch of other inmates laugh.<br>
New guy says "what was THAT about?"<br>
Guard says, "well, they've been here so long they've memorized the joke book.  You just call out the page number and everyone knows the joke and the punchline."<br>
New guy says "can I try?"<br>
Guard says, "knock yourself out, kid."<br>
So the new guy clears his throat, and yells out "43!"<br>
Dead silence.  Awkward silence, even.  New guy whispers, "what happened?  Why didn't they laugh?"<br>
Old guard slaps him on the shoulder and says "no offense, kid, but some people just can't tell a joke."</p><p>
So there's a SECOND new guard who has been watching all this.  He says, "mind if I try?"<br>
Guard shrugs.<br>
Second guy yells "minus 3!"<br>
The entire block erupts in laughter, people howling and crying they're laughing so hard.<br>
First guy says "wait, why was THAT so funny?"<br>
The guard, wiping the tears off his face, says "nobody ever heard that one before!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot needs to create a numbered list of arguments called Slashdot 's List Of Same Old Arguments ( SLOSOA ) .
Then /.ers can save bandwidth ( and lower Taco 's bills ) by disputing by numerical reference to an argument , just as Mennonites are said to argue by reference chapter and verse in the Bible rather than repeating the words .
Time to pull out my numbers joke .
New guy has been hired at the Federal Penitentiary .
Old guard is taking him around showing him how to do his new job .
They 're in one of the blocks and they hear an inmate yell out " 23 !
" and a bunch of other inmates laugh .
New guy says " what was THAT about ?
" Guard says , " well , they 've been here so long they 've memorized the joke book .
You just call out the page number and everyone knows the joke and the punchline .
" New guy says " can I try ?
" Guard says , " knock yourself out , kid .
" So the new guy clears his throat , and yells out " 43 !
" Dead silence .
Awkward silence , even .
New guy whispers , " what happened ?
Why did n't they laugh ?
" Old guard slaps him on the shoulder and says " no offense , kid , but some people just ca n't tell a joke .
" So there 's a SECOND new guard who has been watching all this .
He says , " mind if I try ?
" Guard shrugs .
Second guy yells " minus 3 !
" The entire block erupts in laughter , people howling and crying they 're laughing so hard .
First guy says " wait , why was THAT so funny ?
" The guard , wiping the tears off his face , says " nobody ever heard that one before !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot needs to create a numbered list of arguments called Slashdot's List Of Same Old Arguments (SLOSOA).
Then /.ers can save bandwidth (and lower Taco's bills) by disputing by numerical reference to an argument, just as Mennonites are said to argue by reference chapter and verse in the Bible rather than repeating the words.
Time to pull out my numbers joke.
New guy has been hired at the Federal Penitentiary.
Old guard is taking him around showing him how to do his new job.
They're in one of the blocks and they hear an inmate yell out "23!
" and a bunch of other inmates laugh.
New guy says "what was THAT about?
"
Guard says, "well, they've been here so long they've memorized the joke book.
You just call out the page number and everyone knows the joke and the punchline.
"
New guy says "can I try?
"
Guard says, "knock yourself out, kid.
"
So the new guy clears his throat, and yells out "43!
"
Dead silence.
Awkward silence, even.
New guy whispers, "what happened?
Why didn't they laugh?
"
Old guard slaps him on the shoulder and says "no offense, kid, but some people just can't tell a joke.
"
So there's a SECOND new guard who has been watching all this.
He says, "mind if I try?
"
Guard shrugs.
Second guy yells "minus 3!
"
The entire block erupts in laughter, people howling and crying they're laughing so hard.
First guy says "wait, why was THAT so funny?
"
The guard, wiping the tears off his face, says "nobody ever heard that one before!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473804</id>
	<title>Read Spamalytics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/publication.pl?ID=002358</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.icsi.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/publication.pl ? ID = 002358</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/publication.pl?ID=002358</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473902</id>
	<title>Re:"intelligent and autonomous": yeah, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just think, the first generation of successfull intelligent nets will be built on selling phony penis pills to morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think , the first generation of successfull intelligent nets will be built on selling phony penis pills to morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think, the first generation of successfull intelligent nets will be built on selling phony penis pills to morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473618</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>daid303</author>
	<datestamp>1261066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For more statistics ask:</p><p>Any data on how much of those contain pirated music?<br>Any data on how much of those have used google?<br>Any data on how much of those have had a male user in there whole lifetime?</p><p>Correlation does not imply causation. Yes, many of the machines (if not all) run windows, but that does not have to mean that Windows is less secure then Linux/BSD/MacOS. Until one of those gets enough market share we will never know for sure which of those is more secure as an OS.</p><p>I know it's not a popular statement to make on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. so start modding me down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For more statistics ask : Any data on how much of those contain pirated music ? Any data on how much of those have used google ? Any data on how much of those have had a male user in there whole lifetime ? Correlation does not imply causation .
Yes , many of the machines ( if not all ) run windows , but that does not have to mean that Windows is less secure then Linux/BSD/MacOS .
Until one of those gets enough market share we will never know for sure which of those is more secure as an OS.I know it 's not a popular statement to make on / .
so start modding me down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For more statistics ask:Any data on how much of those contain pirated music?Any data on how much of those have used google?Any data on how much of those have had a male user in there whole lifetime?Correlation does not imply causation.
Yes, many of the machines (if not all) run windows, but that does not have to mean that Windows is less secure then Linux/BSD/MacOS.
Until one of those gets enough market share we will never know for sure which of those is more secure as an OS.I know it's not a popular statement to make on /.
so start modding me down!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30476592</id>
	<title>2009? Botnets Died?</title>
	<author>taphu</author>
	<datestamp>1261078680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can not, for the life of me, figure out why anyone would have "Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died". Really?</p><p>Thought that 2009 was the year cancer was cured? Well think again!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. wtf?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not , for the life of me , figure out why anyone would have " Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died " .
Really ? Thought that 2009 was the year cancer was cured ?
Well think again !
.. wtf ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can not, for the life of me, figure out why anyone would have "Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died".
Really?Thought that 2009 was the year cancer was cured?
Well think again!
.. wtf?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473170</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261064520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wouldn't be such a problem if MS would have something like Linux where you have to jump through a hoop to run the box as 'root' AKA 'Admin' and if the OEMs would put a user account on their machines by default. <p>Speaking as my family's IT support guy, everyone insists running as Admin - just the way their box was set up by the OEM - and they constantly are getting viruses and trojans. My brother-in-law gets Koobface every other month it seems, I set him up with a user account with Firefox and told him to use that account for everything except installing software. Does he listen? Nope. He had this idea that Firefox was all he needed to be safe.</p><p>I hope he learned his lesson. He got Koobface again and his father wiped his machine and re-installed Windows - he lost a bunch of photos and stuff he wanted to keep - oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would n't be such a problem if MS would have something like Linux where you have to jump through a hoop to run the box as 'root ' AKA 'Admin ' and if the OEMs would put a user account on their machines by default .
Speaking as my family 's IT support guy , everyone insists running as Admin - just the way their box was set up by the OEM - and they constantly are getting viruses and trojans .
My brother-in-law gets Koobface every other month it seems , I set him up with a user account with Firefox and told him to use that account for everything except installing software .
Does he listen ?
Nope. He had this idea that Firefox was all he needed to be safe.I hope he learned his lesson .
He got Koobface again and his father wiped his machine and re-installed Windows - he lost a bunch of photos and stuff he wanted to keep - oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wouldn't be such a problem if MS would have something like Linux where you have to jump through a hoop to run the box as 'root' AKA 'Admin' and if the OEMs would put a user account on their machines by default.
Speaking as my family's IT support guy, everyone insists running as Admin - just the way their box was set up by the OEM - and they constantly are getting viruses and trojans.
My brother-in-law gets Koobface every other month it seems, I set him up with a user account with Firefox and told him to use that account for everything except installing software.
Does he listen?
Nope. He had this idea that Firefox was all he needed to be safe.I hope he learned his lesson.
He got Koobface again and his father wiped his machine and re-installed Windows - he lost a bunch of photos and stuff he wanted to keep - oh well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473588</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>L4t3r4lu5 != 5ul4r3t4L</p><p>Not much of palindrome to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>L4t3r4lu5 ! = 5ul4r3t4LNot much of palindrome to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>L4t3r4lu5 != 5ul4r3t4LNot much of palindrome to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473756</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>obijuanvaldez</author>
	<datestamp>1261066980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa!  Microsoft should create something to make people jump through hoops to get Admin privileges?  Great idea!  Maybe they could call it something like <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb530410.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">User Account Control</a> [microsoft.com].  Man, if only those dudes in Redmond read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa !
Microsoft should create something to make people jump through hoops to get Admin privileges ?
Great idea !
Maybe they could call it something like User Account Control [ microsoft.com ] .
Man , if only those dudes in Redmond read / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa!
Microsoft should create something to make people jump through hoops to get Admin privileges?
Great idea!
Maybe they could call it something like User Account Control [microsoft.com].
Man, if only those dudes in Redmond read /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474146</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1261068360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, well my hair is a bird. Your argument is invalid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , well my hair is a bird .
Your argument is invalid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, well my hair is a bird.
Your argument is invalid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473166</id>
	<title>Re:And this, ladies and gentlemen...</title>
	<author>Mattskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1261064460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be more inclined to go for "offtopic", just like this post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be more inclined to go for " offtopic " , just like this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be more inclined to go for "offtopic", just like this post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30484232</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>inKubus</author>
	<datestamp>1261079700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3. Profit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Profit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473296</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261065120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ah go 34 yourself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ah go 34 yourself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ah go 34 yourself</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475578</id>
	<title>Re:ISP apathy?</title>
	<author>pgmrdlm</author>
	<datestamp>1261074600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have never entirely understood how this problem could be allowed to escalate to the levels we have today. If the statistics that we're always seeing on the bandwidth consumption of spam (and of botnets in general) and the inherent overhead costs associated with that consumption are anywhere close to reality, it seems rather obvious to me that ISPs around the world would have a vested interest in shutting down the botnets on their networks! I mean seriously, folks... let's ignore all of the legislative issues which supposedly prevent them from being able to take action on their own, and just look at the options they'd have if they actually bothered to think about the problem for more than two seconds:  For example, if an ISP tasked their phone based tech support staff with spending even as little as ten percent of their time making calls to customers with systems suspected of being compromised, they would probably be able to kill off the lion share of botnet infected systems, simply by informing those customers that there's a problem with their computer which needs to be fixed! Granted, they would probably have a small percentage of false positives, likely in the form of people who are knowingly using P2P clients or something like that... but isn't the benefit of making more bandwidth available for practically everything else (and of course, killing a big chunk of that overhead cost in the process) worth briefly annoying those few people downloading porn or Linux ISOs?</p><p>Well... okay; maybe it's more than a few, since I went and lumped porn users in there..... but still.</p></div><p>--<br>I can give you a reason why the ISP's have not done anything.</p><p>- What do you think would happen if the ISP's started terminating service to people suspected of being part of a botnet? They would proably lose as much in court defending their position as they are now in lost band width.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *** By the way, i think they should be terminating service. And then assisting through various programs to help remove the infection.<br>- What do you think would happen if the ISP's started redirecting users away from known infected web sites/irc networks via dns to help stop new infections? Cox did this by the way... And all you heard was an uproar about invasion of privacy by users.</p><p>Seriously. WHAT could the ISP's do that would not have them spending all their time in court for either non delivery of services, invasion of privacy, or throtteling charges?</p><p>No matter what an ISP did/does, there will allways be accused of either not doing enough(as is occuring now) or of being to heavy handed(as occured with Cox net).</p><p>hell, you already have people accusing the ISP's being in bed with RIAA when ever there is even a hint that they are monitoring their network for illegal use of bandwidth. And what, pray tell. does a botnet do? Illegally use bandwidth to perform its other illegal activities(denail of service attacks, identy theft).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never entirely understood how this problem could be allowed to escalate to the levels we have today .
If the statistics that we 're always seeing on the bandwidth consumption of spam ( and of botnets in general ) and the inherent overhead costs associated with that consumption are anywhere close to reality , it seems rather obvious to me that ISPs around the world would have a vested interest in shutting down the botnets on their networks !
I mean seriously , folks... let 's ignore all of the legislative issues which supposedly prevent them from being able to take action on their own , and just look at the options they 'd have if they actually bothered to think about the problem for more than two seconds : For example , if an ISP tasked their phone based tech support staff with spending even as little as ten percent of their time making calls to customers with systems suspected of being compromised , they would probably be able to kill off the lion share of botnet infected systems , simply by informing those customers that there 's a problem with their computer which needs to be fixed !
Granted , they would probably have a small percentage of false positives , likely in the form of people who are knowingly using P2P clients or something like that... but is n't the benefit of making more bandwidth available for practically everything else ( and of course , killing a big chunk of that overhead cost in the process ) worth briefly annoying those few people downloading porn or Linux ISOs ? Well... okay ; maybe it 's more than a few , since I went and lumped porn users in there..... but still.--I can give you a reason why the ISP 's have not done anything.- What do you think would happen if the ISP 's started terminating service to people suspected of being part of a botnet ?
They would proably lose as much in court defending their position as they are now in lost band width .
      * * * By the way , i think they should be terminating service .
And then assisting through various programs to help remove the infection.- What do you think would happen if the ISP 's started redirecting users away from known infected web sites/irc networks via dns to help stop new infections ?
Cox did this by the way... And all you heard was an uproar about invasion of privacy by users.Seriously .
WHAT could the ISP 's do that would not have them spending all their time in court for either non delivery of services , invasion of privacy , or throtteling charges ? No matter what an ISP did/does , there will allways be accused of either not doing enough ( as is occuring now ) or of being to heavy handed ( as occured with Cox net ) .hell , you already have people accusing the ISP 's being in bed with RIAA when ever there is even a hint that they are monitoring their network for illegal use of bandwidth .
And what , pray tell .
does a botnet do ?
Illegally use bandwidth to perform its other illegal activities ( denail of service attacks , identy theft ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never entirely understood how this problem could be allowed to escalate to the levels we have today.
If the statistics that we're always seeing on the bandwidth consumption of spam (and of botnets in general) and the inherent overhead costs associated with that consumption are anywhere close to reality, it seems rather obvious to me that ISPs around the world would have a vested interest in shutting down the botnets on their networks!
I mean seriously, folks... let's ignore all of the legislative issues which supposedly prevent them from being able to take action on their own, and just look at the options they'd have if they actually bothered to think about the problem for more than two seconds:  For example, if an ISP tasked their phone based tech support staff with spending even as little as ten percent of their time making calls to customers with systems suspected of being compromised, they would probably be able to kill off the lion share of botnet infected systems, simply by informing those customers that there's a problem with their computer which needs to be fixed!
Granted, they would probably have a small percentage of false positives, likely in the form of people who are knowingly using P2P clients or something like that... but isn't the benefit of making more bandwidth available for practically everything else (and of course, killing a big chunk of that overhead cost in the process) worth briefly annoying those few people downloading porn or Linux ISOs?Well... okay; maybe it's more than a few, since I went and lumped porn users in there..... but still.--I can give you a reason why the ISP's have not done anything.- What do you think would happen if the ISP's started terminating service to people suspected of being part of a botnet?
They would proably lose as much in court defending their position as they are now in lost band width.
      *** By the way, i think they should be terminating service.
And then assisting through various programs to help remove the infection.- What do you think would happen if the ISP's started redirecting users away from known infected web sites/irc networks via dns to help stop new infections?
Cox did this by the way... And all you heard was an uproar about invasion of privacy by users.Seriously.
WHAT could the ISP's do that would not have them spending all their time in court for either non delivery of services, invasion of privacy, or throtteling charges?No matter what an ISP did/does, there will allways be accused of either not doing enough(as is occuring now) or of being to heavy handed(as occured with Cox net).hell, you already have people accusing the ISP's being in bed with RIAA when ever there is even a hint that they are monitoring their network for illegal use of bandwidth.
And what, pray tell.
does a botnet do?
Illegally use bandwidth to perform its other illegal activities(denail of service attacks, identy theft).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475040</id>
	<title>anon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261072140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died? Well, think again"<br>You've got to be kidding me. This is shameless fear mongering and advertising for companies who sell antivirus/security applications. Nevermind the blatent fact that this is all speculation but just to get us on our toes for the eventual horror they've decided to get our minds already running in the direction of things getting worse.</p><p>"and it's going to get worse if intelligent and autonomous botnets arrive in 2010 as predicted."<br>As predicted? Using what evidence? Your wallets? Oh no intelligent and autonomous botnets! Hide your children!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died ?
Well , think again " You 've got to be kidding me .
This is shameless fear mongering and advertising for companies who sell antivirus/security applications .
Nevermind the blatent fact that this is all speculation but just to get us on our toes for the eventual horror they 've decided to get our minds already running in the direction of things getting worse .
" and it 's going to get worse if intelligent and autonomous botnets arrive in 2010 as predicted .
" As predicted ?
Using what evidence ?
Your wallets ?
Oh no intelligent and autonomous botnets !
Hide your children ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died?
Well, think again"You've got to be kidding me.
This is shameless fear mongering and advertising for companies who sell antivirus/security applications.
Nevermind the blatent fact that this is all speculation but just to get us on our toes for the eventual horror they've decided to get our minds already running in the direction of things getting worse.
"and it's going to get worse if intelligent and autonomous botnets arrive in 2010 as predicted.
"As predicted?
Using what evidence?
Your wallets?
Oh no intelligent and autonomous botnets!
Hide your children!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30481186</id>
	<title>Re:Judgment Day</title>
	<author>kahless62003</author>
	<datestamp>1261053540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nine milli<b>metres</b> later,SkyNet terminates itself.</p></div></blockquote><p>
TFIFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nine millimetres later,SkyNet terminates itself .
TFIFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nine millimetres later,SkyNet terminates itself.
TFIFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473640</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And if you don't like it, then 42.</i></p><p>That's not quite precise, sir. I checked the calculations on the Deep Thought computer, and it was quite adament that the answer was in fact exactly forty two point zero. It was quite angry that its answer was never reported accurately.</p><p>42.0 FTW! Quite different than showing forty two in binary on your fingers, and a whole lot nicer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you do n't like it , then 42.That 's not quite precise , sir .
I checked the calculations on the Deep Thought computer , and it was quite adament that the answer was in fact exactly forty two point zero .
It was quite angry that its answer was never reported accurately.42.0 FTW !
Quite different than showing forty two in binary on your fingers , and a whole lot nicer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you don't like it, then 42.That's not quite precise, sir.
I checked the calculations on the Deep Thought computer, and it was quite adament that the answer was in fact exactly forty two point zero.
It was quite angry that its answer was never reported accurately.42.0 FTW!
Quite different than showing forty two in binary on your fingers, and a whole lot nicer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473142</id>
	<title>"intelligent and autonomous": yeah, right.</title>
	<author>mattdm</author>
	<datestamp>1261064400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This deserves a gigantic "O RLY?"</p><p>How well have "intelligent and autonomous" software agents worked in other areas of computing? Pretty well on the autonomous -- but still terrible on "intelligent".</p><p>The article is, of course, ridiculously vague on what that really means (says "self-sufficient coding in order to coordinate and extend its own survival"), but I expect all that really means is that they'll act like the polymorphic computer viruses we've already got. Ho-hum.</p><p>It's not like we're going to get The Adolescence of P1 or anything, here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This deserves a gigantic " O RLY ?
" How well have " intelligent and autonomous " software agents worked in other areas of computing ?
Pretty well on the autonomous -- but still terrible on " intelligent " .The article is , of course , ridiculously vague on what that really means ( says " self-sufficient coding in order to coordinate and extend its own survival " ) , but I expect all that really means is that they 'll act like the polymorphic computer viruses we 've already got .
Ho-hum.It 's not like we 're going to get The Adolescence of P1 or anything , here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This deserves a gigantic "O RLY?
"How well have "intelligent and autonomous" software agents worked in other areas of computing?
Pretty well on the autonomous -- but still terrible on "intelligent".The article is, of course, ridiculously vague on what that really means (says "self-sufficient coding in order to coordinate and extend its own survival"), but I expect all that really means is that they'll act like the polymorphic computer viruses we've already got.
Ho-hum.It's not like we're going to get The Adolescence of P1 or anything, here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934</id>
	<title>What OS?</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1261063380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any data on how much of those are running Windows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any data on how much of those are running Windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any data on how much of those are running Windows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30477400</id>
	<title>Re:A New Era In /. Efficiency</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1261081560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I'm not a number, !24</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    I 'm not a number , ! 24</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    I'm not a number, !24</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474302</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30476480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30478408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30481186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30478810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30477400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30484232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30478248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1314226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30478408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30478810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30481186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30472934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473382
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30478248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473588
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474146
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30476480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30484232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30474302
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30477400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30475578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1314226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1314226.30473366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
