<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_06_1425210</id>
	<title>Nexus One vs. Top 10 Phone Security Requirements</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262796180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>hiouridah writes <i>"Consumer Grade or Enterprise Ready? The Nexus One is entering a smart phone market that is taking increasing heat from enterprises for their lack of robust security features. So <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/49560">how does the Nexus One stack up</a>?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>hiouridah writes " Consumer Grade or Enterprise Ready ?
The Nexus One is entering a smart phone market that is taking increasing heat from enterprises for their lack of robust security features .
So how does the Nexus One stack up ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hiouridah writes "Consumer Grade or Enterprise Ready?
The Nexus One is entering a smart phone market that is taking increasing heat from enterprises for their lack of robust security features.
So how does the Nexus One stack up?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673170</id>
	<title>Fp nIgga</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262807820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the deal wioth you</htmltext>
<tokenext>the deal wioth you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the deal wioth you</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671216</id>
	<title>hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262800020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It stacks fairly well but will topple if you stack too many</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It stacks fairly well but will topple if you stack too many</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It stacks fairly well but will topple if you stack too many</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673660</id>
	<title>Re:Nexus One vs iPhone 3Gs vs. N900</title>
	<author>yincrash</author>
	<datestamp>1262810040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Android programs are made in a Java subset that runs in the Dalvik VM. You can also write parts of the app in native (assembly? or C? i forget) but this can add phone compatibility issues. <br>
There is a free app than runs J2ME programs I believe by basically just interpreting the J2ME bytecode into the Dalvik bytecode. It's sufficient because most J2ME programs aren't that processor intensive anyways.<br>
As a note for the sibling reply, there is also a free text reader program for the android. I believe it is full featured enough to use the phone while being blind, but I am not really a good judge of that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Android programs are made in a Java subset that runs in the Dalvik VM .
You can also write parts of the app in native ( assembly ?
or C ?
i forget ) but this can add phone compatibility issues .
There is a free app than runs J2ME programs I believe by basically just interpreting the J2ME bytecode into the Dalvik bytecode .
It 's sufficient because most J2ME programs are n't that processor intensive anyways .
As a note for the sibling reply , there is also a free text reader program for the android .
I believe it is full featured enough to use the phone while being blind , but I am not really a good judge of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android programs are made in a Java subset that runs in the Dalvik VM.
You can also write parts of the app in native (assembly?
or C?
i forget) but this can add phone compatibility issues.
There is a free app than runs J2ME programs I believe by basically just interpreting the J2ME bytecode into the Dalvik bytecode.
It's sufficient because most J2ME programs aren't that processor intensive anyways.
As a note for the sibling reply, there is also a free text reader program for the android.
I believe it is full featured enough to use the phone while being blind, but I am not really a good judge of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671398</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262800620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1ghz vs 2 * 600mhz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1ghz vs 2 * 600mhz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1ghz vs 2 * 600mhz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673636</id>
	<title>Re:Remote data wipe?</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1262809860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ability to do a remote data wipe is key for the enterprise market.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There have been applications on the market to do this for a long time now.</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ability to do a remote data wipe is key for the enterprise market.There have been applications on the market to do this for a long time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ability to do a remote data wipe is key for the enterprise market.There have been applications on the market to do this for a long time now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673144</id>
	<title>Re:Revoke Applications</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1262807700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's primarily talking about the signing process, and he's quite right. Actually, it's worse than he's letting on. The Android Dev Tool plugin for Eclipse (which is the preferred frontend for signing your Android applications) is itself an unsigned Eclipse package - complete with warning from Eclipse that it's unsigned.</p><p>So think about that for a moment: You're signing software using unsigned software. All someone has to do is get a man in the middle on you, and the whole chain of trust is blown wide open. It's absurd. I love my Droid, and knowing what an application can do is nice, but Google needs to look at dealing with these obvious problems.</p><p>Also I've never been able to connect to get updates to the SDK over https. The great advice on the Android site is to click "force https sources to be fetched over http." Honestly, we might as well be transmitting this crap over irc for all the attention they're paying to security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's primarily talking about the signing process , and he 's quite right .
Actually , it 's worse than he 's letting on .
The Android Dev Tool plugin for Eclipse ( which is the preferred frontend for signing your Android applications ) is itself an unsigned Eclipse package - complete with warning from Eclipse that it 's unsigned.So think about that for a moment : You 're signing software using unsigned software .
All someone has to do is get a man in the middle on you , and the whole chain of trust is blown wide open .
It 's absurd .
I love my Droid , and knowing what an application can do is nice , but Google needs to look at dealing with these obvious problems.Also I 've never been able to connect to get updates to the SDK over https .
The great advice on the Android site is to click " force https sources to be fetched over http .
" Honestly , we might as well be transmitting this crap over irc for all the attention they 're paying to security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's primarily talking about the signing process, and he's quite right.
Actually, it's worse than he's letting on.
The Android Dev Tool plugin for Eclipse (which is the preferred frontend for signing your Android applications) is itself an unsigned Eclipse package - complete with warning from Eclipse that it's unsigned.So think about that for a moment: You're signing software using unsigned software.
All someone has to do is get a man in the middle on you, and the whole chain of trust is blown wide open.
It's absurd.
I love my Droid, and knowing what an application can do is nice, but Google needs to look at dealing with these obvious problems.Also I've never been able to connect to get updates to the SDK over https.
The great advice on the Android site is to click "force https sources to be fetched over http.
" Honestly, we might as well be transmitting this crap over irc for all the attention they're paying to security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675498</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1262775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Right now developers have to support Android 1.1 (large deprecated now), 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 (obsoleted), 2.01, and soon 2.1.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, <a href="http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/12/knowing-is-half-battle.html" title="blogspot.com">that's not quite accurate</a> [blogspot.com].</p><p>The rest of your post, well, I don't feel like responding to each point right now. Suffice it to say, if you want to argue with your users on the market, you're doing it wrong (I say this as somebody who has published his own quite popular Android app last year). I've seen a lot of developers who somehow believe that if users say their app crashes or doesn't work, it's Androids fault! And as an Android user, I've experienced exactly zero app compatibility issues. Maybe you think Android development is some kind of major headache but having done it myself, I strongly disagree.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now developers have to support Android 1.1 ( large deprecated now ) , 1.5 , 1.6 , 2.0 ( obsoleted ) , 2.01 , and soon 2.1.No , that 's not quite accurate [ blogspot.com ] .The rest of your post , well , I do n't feel like responding to each point right now .
Suffice it to say , if you want to argue with your users on the market , you 're doing it wrong ( I say this as somebody who has published his own quite popular Android app last year ) .
I 've seen a lot of developers who somehow believe that if users say their app crashes or does n't work , it 's Androids fault !
And as an Android user , I 've experienced exactly zero app compatibility issues .
Maybe you think Android development is some kind of major headache but having done it myself , I strongly disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now developers have to support Android 1.1 (large deprecated now), 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 (obsoleted), 2.01, and soon 2.1.No, that's not quite accurate [blogspot.com].The rest of your post, well, I don't feel like responding to each point right now.
Suffice it to say, if you want to argue with your users on the market, you're doing it wrong (I say this as somebody who has published his own quite popular Android app last year).
I've seen a lot of developers who somehow believe that if users say their app crashes or doesn't work, it's Androids fault!
And as an Android user, I've experienced exactly zero app compatibility issues.
Maybe you think Android development is some kind of major headache but having done it myself, I strongly disagree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30676652</id>
	<title>Aren't those security bugs?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262780760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>corporate enforcement of security settings</p></div><p>That means they, not I, control the hardware.  That means that the phone, from my vantage point, comes with its security pre-broken.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>hardware data encryption</p></div><p>Why?  Can't you just implement AES in software?  Linux can do full-disk encryption just fine.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and remote wiping capability.</p></div><p>This is either "ssh phone 'rm -rf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/'", which Linux should be able to do, or it means some not-me can decide to fuck over my phone.  If it's the latter, from my vantage point, it's insecure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>corporate enforcement of security settingsThat means they , not I , control the hardware .
That means that the phone , from my vantage point , comes with its security pre-broken.hardware data encryptionWhy ?
Ca n't you just implement AES in software ?
Linux can do full-disk encryption just fine.and remote wiping capability.This is either " ssh phone 'rm -rf / ' " , which Linux should be able to do , or it means some not-me can decide to fuck over my phone .
If it 's the latter , from my vantage point , it 's insecure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>corporate enforcement of security settingsThat means they, not I, control the hardware.
That means that the phone, from my vantage point, comes with its security pre-broken.hardware data encryptionWhy?
Can't you just implement AES in software?
Linux can do full-disk encryption just fine.and remote wiping capability.This is either "ssh phone 'rm -rf /'", which Linux should be able to do, or it means some not-me can decide to fuck over my phone.
If it's the latter, from my vantage point, it's insecure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671790</id>
	<title>Re:Remote data wipe?</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1262802240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On my iPhone I can set a password. If it's entered incorrectly 10 times, the device automatically wipes itself.</p></div></blockquote><p>Only the iPhone 3G S can do this quickly, and only if device encryption is enabled.  With encryption, the device just erases the key.  Without encryption, the wipe must overwrite the entire memory area.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On my iPhone I can set a password .
If it 's entered incorrectly 10 times , the device automatically wipes itself.Only the iPhone 3G S can do this quickly , and only if device encryption is enabled .
With encryption , the device just erases the key .
Without encryption , the wipe must overwrite the entire memory area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my iPhone I can set a password.
If it's entered incorrectly 10 times, the device automatically wipes itself.Only the iPhone 3G S can do this quickly, and only if device encryption is enabled.
With encryption, the device just erases the key.
Without encryption, the wipe must overwrite the entire memory area.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671422</id>
	<title>Revoke Applications</title>
	<author>dwandy</author>
	<datestamp>1262800740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From TFA: Apple iPhone requires application signing and it issues and revokes the certificates making it a powerful security feature.</p></div></blockquote><p>
This "feature" is a prime reason I <b>didn't</b> buy an iPhone. I guess as a <i>Security Guy</i> he has to be willing to give up all his freedoms in his quest for security...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Apple iPhone requires application signing and it issues and revokes the certificates making it a powerful security feature .
This " feature " is a prime reason I did n't buy an iPhone .
I guess as a Security Guy he has to be willing to give up all his freedoms in his quest for security.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: Apple iPhone requires application signing and it issues and revokes the certificates making it a powerful security feature.
This "feature" is a prime reason I didn't buy an iPhone.
I guess as a Security Guy he has to be willing to give up all his freedoms in his quest for security...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672794</id>
	<title>Re:Good prediction</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1262806200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and google probably has an email system where everything is stored in Gmail in the cloud. for the rest of us, we have exchange and people store a lot of data on phones</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and google probably has an email system where everything is stored in Gmail in the cloud .
for the rest of us , we have exchange and people store a lot of data on phones</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and google probably has an email system where everything is stored in Gmail in the cloud.
for the rest of us, we have exchange and people store a lot of data on phones</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673558</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>CyberNigma</author>
	<datestamp>1262809500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep in mind, something I found out as I was about to pick one up myself, the iPhone by default stores its apps and app data on the 4/8/16gb flash memory it has and runs them from there.  Android devices, even with SD/SDHC slots capable of 32gb of memory will not allow, by default apps to be downloaded and run from the SD/SDHC.  All apps have to be run (by default) from within that 512MB of internal memory.</p><p>The only alternative is to root your device and make modifications to allows apps to be run from the SD/SDHC.  This was put in place to protect (a drm of sort) purchased apps from the Android marketplace.</p><p>oogle admits they are trying to find a solution to the problem, such as encrypting purchased apps so they can be run from removable media.  Until that is done, the Nexus One has approximately 256MB of space for downloaded apps and the iPhone has 4+gb of space for said apps.  Again, unless you root your device.</p><p>iPhone app space = 4/8/16gb<br>Nexus One (default/non-rooted) app space = ~256MB<br>Nexu One (rooted) app space = size of SD/SDHC card (~32gb)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind , something I found out as I was about to pick one up myself , the iPhone by default stores its apps and app data on the 4/8/16gb flash memory it has and runs them from there .
Android devices , even with SD/SDHC slots capable of 32gb of memory will not allow , by default apps to be downloaded and run from the SD/SDHC .
All apps have to be run ( by default ) from within that 512MB of internal memory.The only alternative is to root your device and make modifications to allows apps to be run from the SD/SDHC .
This was put in place to protect ( a drm of sort ) purchased apps from the Android marketplace.oogle admits they are trying to find a solution to the problem , such as encrypting purchased apps so they can be run from removable media .
Until that is done , the Nexus One has approximately 256MB of space for downloaded apps and the iPhone has 4 + gb of space for said apps .
Again , unless you root your device.iPhone app space = 4/8/16gbNexus One ( default/non-rooted ) app space = ~ 256MBNexu One ( rooted ) app space = size of SD/SDHC card ( ~ 32gb )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind, something I found out as I was about to pick one up myself, the iPhone by default stores its apps and app data on the 4/8/16gb flash memory it has and runs them from there.
Android devices, even with SD/SDHC slots capable of 32gb of memory will not allow, by default apps to be downloaded and run from the SD/SDHC.
All apps have to be run (by default) from within that 512MB of internal memory.The only alternative is to root your device and make modifications to allows apps to be run from the SD/SDHC.
This was put in place to protect (a drm of sort) purchased apps from the Android marketplace.oogle admits they are trying to find a solution to the problem, such as encrypting purchased apps so they can be run from removable media.
Until that is done, the Nexus One has approximately 256MB of space for downloaded apps and the iPhone has 4+gb of space for said apps.
Again, unless you root your device.iPhone app space = 4/8/16gbNexus One (default/non-rooted) app space = ~256MBNexu One (rooted) app space = size of SD/SDHC card (~32gb)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671634</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1262801520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2010/01/googles\_nexus\_one\_will\_have\_fl.html" title="adobe.com">They're going to put Flash on the Nexus.</a> [adobe.com]<br>Unless Adobe/Google's programmers have done the impossible and magically<br>secured Flash, most of their security isn't going to be worth a damn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're going to put Flash on the Nexus .
[ adobe.com ] Unless Adobe/Google 's programmers have done the impossible and magicallysecured Flash , most of their security is n't going to be worth a damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're going to put Flash on the Nexus.
[adobe.com]Unless Adobe/Google's programmers have done the impossible and magicallysecured Flash, most of their security isn't going to be worth a damn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448</id>
	<title>4 real issues</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262800800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking enterprise here, right?</p><p>Who cares about touch screens and resolution. I do as a geek, but these are the real issues:</p><p>Do you need a separate server to properly sync with Exchange?<br>How well does it sync with Exchange?<br>How secure is it, and can it handle encryption? (The iPhone can't be used in many organizations for this very reason)<br>Is the email app any good? The iPhone mail app for instance is very much lacking in comparison to the Blackberry email app.</p><p>Suits care about covering their asses, and checking email. If it can't do that, it won't be used in the enterprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking enterprise here , right ? Who cares about touch screens and resolution .
I do as a geek , but these are the real issues : Do you need a separate server to properly sync with Exchange ? How well does it sync with Exchange ? How secure is it , and can it handle encryption ?
( The iPhone ca n't be used in many organizations for this very reason ) Is the email app any good ?
The iPhone mail app for instance is very much lacking in comparison to the Blackberry email app.Suits care about covering their asses , and checking email .
If it ca n't do that , it wo n't be used in the enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking enterprise here, right?Who cares about touch screens and resolution.
I do as a geek, but these are the real issues:Do you need a separate server to properly sync with Exchange?How well does it sync with Exchange?How secure is it, and can it handle encryption?
(The iPhone can't be used in many organizations for this very reason)Is the email app any good?
The iPhone mail app for instance is very much lacking in comparison to the Blackberry email app.Suits care about covering their asses, and checking email.
If it can't do that, it won't be used in the enterprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673632</id>
	<title>Re:4 real issues</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1262809860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If applications can be added, then encryption of data can be done through a third party app.  Someone, presumably, can write an appropriate exchange client and do whatever is needed.  The only drawback is the built in apps will still be there, along with whatever security vunelerabilities exist along side their presence.
<p>
As much as many of us hate it, application signing is going to be a requirement on any corporate phone, or pretty much any phone that is not bought as hacking toy.  I, for instance, expect my phone to work, and I am not willing for it to become compromised, especially since it is a communication device and tends to come into contact with many more networks than my laptop.  As such if I were the boss I would not give any google phone to employees who would likely put any arbitrary maliciou software on it if it meant being sent the sports scores or soap opera updates on a regular basis.  They don't care that they destroyed a phone, all they care about is that they were entertained for a minute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If applications can be added , then encryption of data can be done through a third party app .
Someone , presumably , can write an appropriate exchange client and do whatever is needed .
The only drawback is the built in apps will still be there , along with whatever security vunelerabilities exist along side their presence .
As much as many of us hate it , application signing is going to be a requirement on any corporate phone , or pretty much any phone that is not bought as hacking toy .
I , for instance , expect my phone to work , and I am not willing for it to become compromised , especially since it is a communication device and tends to come into contact with many more networks than my laptop .
As such if I were the boss I would not give any google phone to employees who would likely put any arbitrary maliciou software on it if it meant being sent the sports scores or soap opera updates on a regular basis .
They do n't care that they destroyed a phone , all they care about is that they were entertained for a minute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If applications can be added, then encryption of data can be done through a third party app.
Someone, presumably, can write an appropriate exchange client and do whatever is needed.
The only drawback is the built in apps will still be there, along with whatever security vunelerabilities exist along side their presence.
As much as many of us hate it, application signing is going to be a requirement on any corporate phone, or pretty much any phone that is not bought as hacking toy.
I, for instance, expect my phone to work, and I am not willing for it to become compromised, especially since it is a communication device and tends to come into contact with many more networks than my laptop.
As such if I were the boss I would not give any google phone to employees who would likely put any arbitrary maliciou software on it if it meant being sent the sports scores or soap opera updates on a regular basis.
They don't care that they destroyed a phone, all they care about is that they were entertained for a minute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672474</id>
	<title>Re:RIM's bread and butter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262804820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice try.. As per this post, Blackberry backed-down and allowed Indian Government to snoop BB users.</p><p>http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/22/rim-allows-indian-government-to-monitor-blackberry-network/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice try.. As per this post , Blackberry backed-down and allowed Indian Government to snoop BB users.http : //www.engadget.com/2008/05/22/rim-allows-indian-government-to-monitor-blackberry-network/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice try.. As per this post, Blackberry backed-down and allowed Indian Government to snoop BB users.http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/22/rim-allows-indian-government-to-monitor-blackberry-network/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671570</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1262801280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?</p></div></blockquote><p>There's nothing inherently secure or insecure about open source software.  It's not like all open source software is built with different tools or in safer languages.</p><blockquote><div><p>After all, when coding an program they know will be open sourced, programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it won't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.</p></div></blockquote><p>One could assert that open source programmers (at least those working for free) don't need to care about reliability or security since they aren't getting paid.  One could also assert that anyone can create / contribute to an open source project, including those who don't know what they are doing.<br>However I don't think there's evidence for your assertion or my assertions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one ? There 's nothing inherently secure or insecure about open source software .
It 's not like all open source software is built with different tools or in safer languages.After all , when coding an program they know will be open sourced , programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it wo n't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.One could assert that open source programmers ( at least those working for free ) do n't need to care about reliability or security since they are n't getting paid .
One could also assert that anyone can create / contribute to an open source project , including those who do n't know what they are doing.However I do n't think there 's evidence for your assertion or my assertions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?There's nothing inherently secure or insecure about open source software.
It's not like all open source software is built with different tools or in safer languages.After all, when coding an program they know will be open sourced, programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it won't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.One could assert that open source programmers (at least those working for free) don't need to care about reliability or security since they aren't getting paid.
One could also assert that anyone can create / contribute to an open source project, including those who don't know what they are doing.However I don't think there's evidence for your assertion or my assertions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671916</id>
	<title>Re:RIM's bread and butter</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1262802720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt its because of security soley.  Its the BES management features that really sell it.  Centralized policies, remote wipes, etc.  Security is only part of that.  The BB system relies on your pumping your mail to Ontario and BB's getting it from Ontario. Its not a direct connection to the BES server in your enterprise. So any outtage in Ontario means an outtage for you.  Not sure how good of an idea that is, especially since Android and other Activesync phones connect straight to your mail server just like any email client, and not through BB's proxies, which can be compromised. Sure they use end to end security but how feasible are MITM attacks?</p><p>I could see Google or Microsoft reproducing some of these features for corporate customers. That would pretty much kill the BB. For every thing the BB does well it does 5 other things badly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt its because of security soley .
Its the BES management features that really sell it .
Centralized policies , remote wipes , etc .
Security is only part of that .
The BB system relies on your pumping your mail to Ontario and BB 's getting it from Ontario .
Its not a direct connection to the BES server in your enterprise .
So any outtage in Ontario means an outtage for you .
Not sure how good of an idea that is , especially since Android and other Activesync phones connect straight to your mail server just like any email client , and not through BB 's proxies , which can be compromised .
Sure they use end to end security but how feasible are MITM attacks ? I could see Google or Microsoft reproducing some of these features for corporate customers .
That would pretty much kill the BB .
For every thing the BB does well it does 5 other things badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt its because of security soley.
Its the BES management features that really sell it.
Centralized policies, remote wipes, etc.
Security is only part of that.
The BB system relies on your pumping your mail to Ontario and BB's getting it from Ontario.
Its not a direct connection to the BES server in your enterprise.
So any outtage in Ontario means an outtage for you.
Not sure how good of an idea that is, especially since Android and other Activesync phones connect straight to your mail server just like any email client, and not through BB's proxies, which can be compromised.
Sure they use end to end security but how feasible are MITM attacks?I could see Google or Microsoft reproducing some of these features for corporate customers.
That would pretty much kill the BB.
For every thing the BB does well it does 5 other things badly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671202</id>
	<title>Im going to wait.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262799960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will personally be waiting for the next gen to come around. It will most likely be like the iPhone was. First model was ok but the later were much better...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will personally be waiting for the next gen to come around .
It will most likely be like the iPhone was .
First model was ok but the later were much better.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will personally be waiting for the next gen to come around.
It will most likely be like the iPhone was.
First model was ok but the later were much better...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30685268</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262891280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who injects "flash card" or "replaceable battery" into an argument about MP3 players, laptops or phones automatically loses. There should be an Internet law for this phenomenon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who injects " flash card " or " replaceable battery " into an argument about MP3 players , laptops or phones automatically loses .
There should be an Internet law for this phenomenon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who injects "flash card" or "replaceable battery" into an argument about MP3 players, laptops or phones automatically loses.
There should be an Internet law for this phenomenon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673114</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1262807580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice comparison, between a phone that came out last year and a phone that just came out.  You won't be able to judge anything until you look at the 2010 iphone specs.    Apple has been working on a delayed timeline, only releasing features when a major competitor enables the feature first.  Now that android has finally gotten it's act together, we will see what apple puts in it's new iphone.  I think they will be able to keep up (since they did have a 2 year head start), but if they can't, then I will finally be moving over to android (something I thought I would be doing years ago).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice comparison , between a phone that came out last year and a phone that just came out .
You wo n't be able to judge anything until you look at the 2010 iphone specs .
Apple has been working on a delayed timeline , only releasing features when a major competitor enables the feature first .
Now that android has finally gotten it 's act together , we will see what apple puts in it 's new iphone .
I think they will be able to keep up ( since they did have a 2 year head start ) , but if they ca n't , then I will finally be moving over to android ( something I thought I would be doing years ago ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice comparison, between a phone that came out last year and a phone that just came out.
You won't be able to judge anything until you look at the 2010 iphone specs.
Apple has been working on a delayed timeline, only releasing features when a major competitor enables the feature first.
Now that android has finally gotten it's act together, we will see what apple puts in it's new iphone.
I think they will be able to keep up (since they did have a 2 year head start), but if they can't, then I will finally be moving over to android (something I thought I would be doing years ago).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30680074</id>
	<title>Re:RIM's bread and butter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262856240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The TTS feature of the Nexus One sends your speech to Google servers and then back as text to your device. So, here are centralized data that could be compromised on the Nexus One.</p><p>See page 40 of the User's guide <a href="http://www.google.com/googlephone/nexusone-userguide.pdf" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/googlephone/nexusone-userguide.pdf</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The TTS feature of the Nexus One sends your speech to Google servers and then back as text to your device .
So , here are centralized data that could be compromised on the Nexus One.See page 40 of the User 's guide http : //www.google.com/googlephone/nexusone-userguide.pdf [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TTS feature of the Nexus One sends your speech to Google servers and then back as text to your device.
So, here are centralized data that could be compromised on the Nexus One.See page 40 of the User's guide http://www.google.com/googlephone/nexusone-userguide.pdf [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672090</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1262803320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The iPhone is no longer king! Hoorah!</p></div><p>
Ok. Listen closely.<br> <br>
The iPhone wasn't king WHEN IT CAME OUT!<br> <br>
Seriously. There were better phones, hardware-wise, when the iPhone first launched. And there's always been better phones. And I'm willing to bet there will always be better phones, hardware-wise.<br> <br>
It. Does. Not. Matter.<br> <br>
The iPhone's success is not linked to its hardware. When you figure that out - when you realize why the iPhone is actually successful - you might begin to understand what it takes to make the fabled iPhone-killer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone is no longer king !
Hoorah ! Ok. Listen closely .
The iPhone was n't king WHEN IT CAME OUT !
Seriously. There were better phones , hardware-wise , when the iPhone first launched .
And there 's always been better phones .
And I 'm willing to bet there will always be better phones , hardware-wise .
It. Does .
Not. Matter .
The iPhone 's success is not linked to its hardware .
When you figure that out - when you realize why the iPhone is actually successful - you might begin to understand what it takes to make the fabled iPhone-killer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone is no longer king!
Hoorah!
Ok. Listen closely.
The iPhone wasn't king WHEN IT CAME OUT!
Seriously. There were better phones, hardware-wise, when the iPhone first launched.
And there's always been better phones.
And I'm willing to bet there will always be better phones, hardware-wise.
It. Does.
Not. Matter.
The iPhone's success is not linked to its hardware.
When you figure that out - when you realize why the iPhone is actually successful - you might begin to understand what it takes to make the fabled iPhone-killer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30690002</id>
	<title>Re:Remote data wipe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262874840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found a nice program called Mobile Defender that I use on my G1. I can lookup where my phone is (assuming it's online, on the network, and it picks up GPS satellites), lock it, and remote wipe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found a nice program called Mobile Defender that I use on my G1 .
I can lookup where my phone is ( assuming it 's online , on the network , and it picks up GPS satellites ) , lock it , and remote wipe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found a nice program called Mobile Defender that I use on my G1.
I can lookup where my phone is (assuming it's online, on the network, and it picks up GPS satellites), lock it, and remote wipe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672260</id>
	<title>Re:4 real issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enchange? With or without receipt?<br><br>Still using software from the nineties?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enchange ?
With or without receipt ? Still using software from the nineties ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enchange?
With or without receipt?Still using software from the nineties?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672734</id>
	<title>Re:RIM's bread and butter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262805900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I doubt its because of security soley. Its the BES management features that really sell it. Centralized policies, remote wipes, etc. Security is only part of that.</i></p><p>True.</p><p><i>The BB system relies on your pumping your mail to Ontario and BB's getting it from Ontario.</i></p><p>Not true. RIM does have NOCs around the world.</p><p><i>Its not a direct connection to the BES server in your enterprise. So any outtage in Ontario means an outtage for you.</i></p><p>Not everyone goes through the Ontario NOC, although North America does.</p><p><i>Not sure how good of an idea that is, especially since Android and other Activesync phones connect straight to your mail server just like any email client, and not through BB's proxies, which can be compromised.</i></p><p>The beauty of the Blackberry Enterprise Server platform is that it doesn't matter if RIM's infrastructure is compromised. The encryption keys are located in two places: on the blackberry, and on your Blackberry Enterprise Server, which runs on a server in your office. RIM does not have the keys to decrypt. The cell phone carrier does not have the keys to decrypt.</p><p>That is part of the reason the Blackberry Enterprise Server platform has been audited &amp; received so many security certifications: <a href="http://na.blackberry.com/eng/ataglance/security/certifications.jsp" title="blackberry.com" rel="nofollow">http://na.blackberry.com/eng/ataglance/security/certifications.jsp</a> [blackberry.com]</p><p>How many security certifications does the iphone have? Android? Nokia? I strongly suspect the answer is none.</p><p>Not everyone needs the level of security offered by Blackberry, but some of us do.</p><p><i>Sure they use end to end security but how feasible are MITM attacks?</i></p><p>Once a blackberry is activated with a Blackberry Enterprise Server, not possible. You can even set up the key exchange between the Blackberry Enterprise Server &amp; the blackberry over a usb cable - hard to spoof that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt its because of security soley .
Its the BES management features that really sell it .
Centralized policies , remote wipes , etc .
Security is only part of that.True.The BB system relies on your pumping your mail to Ontario and BB 's getting it from Ontario.Not true .
RIM does have NOCs around the world.Its not a direct connection to the BES server in your enterprise .
So any outtage in Ontario means an outtage for you.Not everyone goes through the Ontario NOC , although North America does.Not sure how good of an idea that is , especially since Android and other Activesync phones connect straight to your mail server just like any email client , and not through BB 's proxies , which can be compromised.The beauty of the Blackberry Enterprise Server platform is that it does n't matter if RIM 's infrastructure is compromised .
The encryption keys are located in two places : on the blackberry , and on your Blackberry Enterprise Server , which runs on a server in your office .
RIM does not have the keys to decrypt .
The cell phone carrier does not have the keys to decrypt.That is part of the reason the Blackberry Enterprise Server platform has been audited &amp; received so many security certifications : http : //na.blackberry.com/eng/ataglance/security/certifications.jsp [ blackberry.com ] How many security certifications does the iphone have ?
Android ? Nokia ?
I strongly suspect the answer is none.Not everyone needs the level of security offered by Blackberry , but some of us do.Sure they use end to end security but how feasible are MITM attacks ? Once a blackberry is activated with a Blackberry Enterprise Server , not possible .
You can even set up the key exchange between the Blackberry Enterprise Server &amp; the blackberry over a usb cable - hard to spoof that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt its because of security soley.
Its the BES management features that really sell it.
Centralized policies, remote wipes, etc.
Security is only part of that.True.The BB system relies on your pumping your mail to Ontario and BB's getting it from Ontario.Not true.
RIM does have NOCs around the world.Its not a direct connection to the BES server in your enterprise.
So any outtage in Ontario means an outtage for you.Not everyone goes through the Ontario NOC, although North America does.Not sure how good of an idea that is, especially since Android and other Activesync phones connect straight to your mail server just like any email client, and not through BB's proxies, which can be compromised.The beauty of the Blackberry Enterprise Server platform is that it doesn't matter if RIM's infrastructure is compromised.
The encryption keys are located in two places: on the blackberry, and on your Blackberry Enterprise Server, which runs on a server in your office.
RIM does not have the keys to decrypt.
The cell phone carrier does not have the keys to decrypt.That is part of the reason the Blackberry Enterprise Server platform has been audited &amp; received so many security certifications: http://na.blackberry.com/eng/ataglance/security/certifications.jsp [blackberry.com]How many security certifications does the iphone have?
Android? Nokia?
I strongly suspect the answer is none.Not everyone needs the level of security offered by Blackberry, but some of us do.Sure they use end to end security but how feasible are MITM attacks?Once a blackberry is activated with a Blackberry Enterprise Server, not possible.
You can even set up the key exchange between the Blackberry Enterprise Server &amp; the blackberry over a usb cable - hard to spoof that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30676352</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>Achromatic1978</author>
	<datestamp>1262779200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>512 MB internal storage + 4GB flash card vs 16GB (32GB with upgrade)</p></div></blockquote><p>
That sound is a muscle tearing as it grasps at a straw. Funny, it always seems to happen with Apple. Doesn't matter that all the other specs are superior, an Apple fan will say "but it has no X! ergo it is fail/inferior/different", where X can be one criteria, often as small as "Bluetooth 2.1 versus 2.0", or "integrated SD reader or webcam".</p><p>
That being said, storage is useful. So that's why my Nokia N97 has 32GB on-board by default, and a 32GB SDHC in slot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>512 MB internal storage + 4GB flash card vs 16GB ( 32GB with upgrade ) That sound is a muscle tearing as it grasps at a straw .
Funny , it always seems to happen with Apple .
Does n't matter that all the other specs are superior , an Apple fan will say " but it has no X !
ergo it is fail/inferior/different " , where X can be one criteria , often as small as " Bluetooth 2.1 versus 2.0 " , or " integrated SD reader or webcam " .
That being said , storage is useful .
So that 's why my Nokia N97 has 32GB on-board by default , and a 32GB SDHC in slot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>512 MB internal storage + 4GB flash card vs 16GB (32GB with upgrade)
That sound is a muscle tearing as it grasps at a straw.
Funny, it always seems to happen with Apple.
Doesn't matter that all the other specs are superior, an Apple fan will say "but it has no X!
ergo it is fail/inferior/different", where X can be one criteria, often as small as "Bluetooth 2.1 versus 2.0", or "integrated SD reader or webcam".
That being said, storage is useful.
So that's why my Nokia N97 has 32GB on-board by default, and a 32GB SDHC in slot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671632</id>
	<title>Good prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262801520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I particularly loved this line from the article: -</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But for now, I don't expect to see any corporations handing out the Nexus One to their employees.</p></div><p>I guess he didn't hear about a little corporation named "Google".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I particularly loved this line from the article : -But for now , I do n't expect to see any corporations handing out the Nexus One to their employees.I guess he did n't hear about a little corporation named " Google " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I particularly loved this line from the article: -But for now, I don't expect to see any corporations handing out the Nexus One to their employees.I guess he didn't hear about a little corporation named "Google".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671692</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1262801820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes there is evidence, <b> <i>but</i> </b> it goes both ways. It is impossible to make generic statements about the security of open source (either for or against) without being ripped to shreds with counter points. Anyone who tries to make such a generic comment is going to be wrong.</p><p>What they appear to be saying is that since the code is open source, it's easier for people to find security flaws. Which would seem (to me) to be true. On the flip side, once it's found, it's going to get patched much quicker because you don't have a wait for the only people who can see the code to do something.</p><p>Slashdot loves to use Apache and IIS as examples of the security differences in open vs closed source. The problem is that Apache is not indicative of the quality of open source and Microsoft is not indicate of the quality of closed source.</p><p>For every good quality closed source vendor, I can equally find an open source project from Freshmeat riddled with security flaws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one ? Yes there is evidence , but it goes both ways .
It is impossible to make generic statements about the security of open source ( either for or against ) without being ripped to shreds with counter points .
Anyone who tries to make such a generic comment is going to be wrong.What they appear to be saying is that since the code is open source , it 's easier for people to find security flaws .
Which would seem ( to me ) to be true .
On the flip side , once it 's found , it 's going to get patched much quicker because you do n't have a wait for the only people who can see the code to do something.Slashdot loves to use Apache and IIS as examples of the security differences in open vs closed source .
The problem is that Apache is not indicative of the quality of open source and Microsoft is not indicate of the quality of closed source.For every good quality closed source vendor , I can equally find an open source project from Freshmeat riddled with security flaws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?Yes there is evidence,  but  it goes both ways.
It is impossible to make generic statements about the security of open source (either for or against) without being ripped to shreds with counter points.
Anyone who tries to make such a generic comment is going to be wrong.What they appear to be saying is that since the code is open source, it's easier for people to find security flaws.
Which would seem (to me) to be true.
On the flip side, once it's found, it's going to get patched much quicker because you don't have a wait for the only people who can see the code to do something.Slashdot loves to use Apache and IIS as examples of the security differences in open vs closed source.
The problem is that Apache is not indicative of the quality of open source and Microsoft is not indicate of the quality of closed source.For every good quality closed source vendor, I can equally find an open source project from Freshmeat riddled with security flaws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672992</id>
	<title>Re:Nexus One vs iPhone 3Gs vs. N900</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262807040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tested by 'Will it blend?': no | yes | no</p><p>there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tested by 'Will it blend ?
' : no | yes | nothere !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tested by 'Will it blend?
': no | yes | nothere!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</id>
	<title>N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>Karganeth</author>
	<datestamp>1262800140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>521MB RAM vs 256MB RAM<br>
800x480 vs 480x320<br>
1Ghz vs 600Mhz<br>
5MP vs 3MP<br>
AMOLED vs TFT<br> <br>
To top it off the nexus one is a slimmer device.

Need I say anymore? The iPhone is no longer king! Hoorah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>521MB RAM vs 256MB RAM 800x480 vs 480x320 1Ghz vs 600Mhz 5MP vs 3MP AMOLED vs TFT To top it off the nexus one is a slimmer device .
Need I say anymore ?
The iPhone is no longer king !
Hoorah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>521MB RAM vs 256MB RAM
800x480 vs 480x320
1Ghz vs 600Mhz
5MP vs 3MP
AMOLED vs TFT 
To top it off the nexus one is a slimmer device.
Need I say anymore?
The iPhone is no longer king!
Hoorah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671592</id>
	<title>I saw a tv 'news' report on the n1 today...</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1262801340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I found it interesting that after the 2-second blurb by the anchor on channel 9 (aus) the only other commentary was from some standard and poors 'analyst' saying 'we are confident that the <b>iphone</b> is superior to the n1 in every way' followed by footage of the <b>iphone</b>. It seems they'll put any spin on for the right price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I found it interesting that after the 2-second blurb by the anchor on channel 9 ( aus ) the only other commentary was from some standard and poors 'analyst ' saying 'we are confident that the iphone is superior to the n1 in every way ' followed by footage of the iphone .
It seems they 'll put any spin on for the right price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I found it interesting that after the 2-second blurb by the anchor on channel 9 (aus) the only other commentary was from some standard and poors 'analyst' saying 'we are confident that the iphone is superior to the n1 in every way' followed by footage of the iphone.
It seems they'll put any spin on for the right price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671746</id>
	<title>For those who don't want to skim TFA</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1262802060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screen Lock (including gestures to unlock in addition to alphanumeric codes)<br>VPN support<br>Standard Wireless Support (Wireless-N as well which is nice)<br>Application Sandboxing<br>Lacks Corporate Policy Enforcement (fail for enterprise)<br>Application Signing - Doesn't require trusted signers which defeats the purpose<br>No hardware encryption (fail for enterprise)<br>No Remote Wipe (fail for enterprise)</p><p>IMO, the phone definitely seems ready for the home user, but is very lacking for enterprise</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screen Lock ( including gestures to unlock in addition to alphanumeric codes ) VPN supportStandard Wireless Support ( Wireless-N as well which is nice ) Application SandboxingLacks Corporate Policy Enforcement ( fail for enterprise ) Application Signing - Does n't require trusted signers which defeats the purposeNo hardware encryption ( fail for enterprise ) No Remote Wipe ( fail for enterprise ) IMO , the phone definitely seems ready for the home user , but is very lacking for enterprise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screen Lock (including gestures to unlock in addition to alphanumeric codes)VPN supportStandard Wireless Support (Wireless-N as well which is nice)Application SandboxingLacks Corporate Policy Enforcement (fail for enterprise)Application Signing - Doesn't require trusted signers which defeats the purposeNo hardware encryption (fail for enterprise)No Remote Wipe (fail for enterprise)IMO, the phone definitely seems ready for the home user, but is very lacking for enterprise</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672846</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1262806380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the first phone running Android came out about a year ago</i></p><p>(HOW old are you?)</p><p>a person who considers a year-old product 'mature' -- hmmm -- I have to wonder about how old this person is, themselves.</p><p>seriously, a year is no sign of stability.</p><p>look at the telco world where standards have been in place for *decades* (some even over a century, now).</p><p>"a year" == mature.  oh man, you children really crack me up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the first phone running Android came out about a year ago ( HOW old are you ?
) a person who considers a year-old product 'mature ' -- hmmm -- I have to wonder about how old this person is , themselves.seriously , a year is no sign of stability.look at the telco world where standards have been in place for * decades * ( some even over a century , now ) .
" a year " = = mature .
oh man , you children really crack me up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first phone running Android came out about a year ago(HOW old are you?
)a person who considers a year-old product 'mature' -- hmmm -- I have to wonder about how old this person is, themselves.seriously, a year is no sign of stability.look at the telco world where standards have been in place for *decades* (some even over a century, now).
"a year" == mature.
oh man, you children really crack me up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594</id>
	<title>Nexus One vs iPhone 3Gs vs. N900</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262805360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I&rsquo;m sure if you ask the Japanese, they will laugh in your face. But a quick comparison:</p><p>Nexus One vs iPhone vs. N900</p><p>CPU: 1GHz Qualcomm SnapDragon | 600 Mhz ARM Cortex-A8 + PowerVR SGX | 600 MHz ARM Cortex-A8 + PowerVR SGX<br>RAM: 512MB | 256MB | 1GB<br>Display: 800x480 AMOLED | 480x320 TFT | 800x480 TFT<br>Camera: 5 MP, LED flash | 3 MP, no flash | 5 MB + 0.3 MP (dual), LED flash | (All without optical zoom, which in this day and age, is pathetic.)<br>Storage: 4 GB + unlimited | 16 GB (fixed) | 32 GB + unlimited<br>Battery: 1400 mAh | 1219 mAh (non-removable) | 1320 mAh | (all 3.7 V li-ion)<br>Input: capacitive touchscreen + trackball | multi-touch touchscreen | resistive touchscreen + 38-key backlit keyboard<br>OS: Android | iPhone OS | Maemo Linux<br>Dimensions: 119 * 59.8 * 11.5 mm | 115.5 * 62.1 * 12.3 mm | 110.9 * 59.8 * 18 mm<br>Java support: yes | no | yes<br>GPS: They all got A-GPS and Wi-Fi triangulation is possible with a software. Although from what I heard, the iPhone has that software built-in. (I bought it for 3&euro; for my Nokia, so not much trouble there.)<br>Ability to put on it and do with it what you want:  likely | locked down | absolutely<br>FM radio: no | no | yes</p><p>That&rsquo;s about the differences I could make out. I hope this gives a better picture. I tried to stay unbiased. (And I&rsquo;m sure I will draw hate for this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) As always: No guarantees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I    m sure if you ask the Japanese , they will laugh in your face .
But a quick comparison : Nexus One vs iPhone vs. N900CPU : 1GHz Qualcomm SnapDragon | 600 Mhz ARM Cortex-A8 + PowerVR SGX | 600 MHz ARM Cortex-A8 + PowerVR SGXRAM : 512MB | 256MB | 1GBDisplay : 800x480 AMOLED | 480x320 TFT | 800x480 TFTCamera : 5 MP , LED flash | 3 MP , no flash | 5 MB + 0.3 MP ( dual ) , LED flash | ( All without optical zoom , which in this day and age , is pathetic .
) Storage : 4 GB + unlimited | 16 GB ( fixed ) | 32 GB + unlimitedBattery : 1400 mAh | 1219 mAh ( non-removable ) | 1320 mAh | ( all 3.7 V li-ion ) Input : capacitive touchscreen + trackball | multi-touch touchscreen | resistive touchscreen + 38-key backlit keyboardOS : Android | iPhone OS | Maemo LinuxDimensions : 119 * 59.8 * 11.5 mm | 115.5 * 62.1 * 12.3 mm | 110.9 * 59.8 * 18 mmJava support : yes | no | yesGPS : They all got A-GPS and Wi-Fi triangulation is possible with a software .
Although from what I heard , the iPhone has that software built-in .
( I bought it for 3    for my Nokia , so not much trouble there .
) Ability to put on it and do with it what you want : likely | locked down | absolutelyFM radio : no | no | yesThat    s about the differences I could make out .
I hope this gives a better picture .
I tried to stay unbiased .
( And I    m sure I will draw hate for this .
; ) As always : No guarantees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I’m sure if you ask the Japanese, they will laugh in your face.
But a quick comparison:Nexus One vs iPhone vs. N900CPU: 1GHz Qualcomm SnapDragon | 600 Mhz ARM Cortex-A8 + PowerVR SGX | 600 MHz ARM Cortex-A8 + PowerVR SGXRAM: 512MB | 256MB | 1GBDisplay: 800x480 AMOLED | 480x320 TFT | 800x480 TFTCamera: 5 MP, LED flash | 3 MP, no flash | 5 MB + 0.3 MP (dual), LED flash | (All without optical zoom, which in this day and age, is pathetic.
)Storage: 4 GB + unlimited | 16 GB (fixed) | 32 GB + unlimitedBattery: 1400 mAh | 1219 mAh (non-removable) | 1320 mAh | (all 3.7 V li-ion)Input: capacitive touchscreen + trackball | multi-touch touchscreen | resistive touchscreen + 38-key backlit keyboardOS: Android | iPhone OS | Maemo LinuxDimensions: 119 * 59.8 * 11.5 mm | 115.5 * 62.1 * 12.3 mm | 110.9 * 59.8 * 18 mmJava support: yes | no | yesGPS: They all got A-GPS and Wi-Fi triangulation is possible with a software.
Although from what I heard, the iPhone has that software built-in.
(I bought it for 3€ for my Nokia, so not much trouble there.
)Ability to put on it and do with it what you want:  likely | locked down | absolutelyFM radio: no | no | yesThat’s about the differences I could make out.
I hope this gives a better picture.
I tried to stay unbiased.
(And I’m sure I will draw hate for this.
;) As always: No guarantees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674894</id>
	<title>Re:Nexus One vs iPhone 3Gs vs. N900</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262772480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to be a party pooper, but with respect to the N900:<br>RAM: my N900 only has 256MB of RAM. The other 768 is swap!<br>Camera: The front camera is disabled and should be discounted until such time as nokia actually releases firmware supporting it to the public.<br>Storage: SDHC is not unlimited<br>Software: The official Ovi store is not open yet, and maemo-extras is kinda slow on the community approval. Apps are supposed to install to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/opt, but many forget or fail to optify everything so the tiny flash / slowly fills up. There's a large backlog of software from previous devices not yet ported to Maemo5, if ever.</p><p>There are some unmentioned advantages; the n900 has tv out, and an IR emitter. And we get Fennec, so yay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to be a party pooper , but with respect to the N900 : RAM : my N900 only has 256MB of RAM .
The other 768 is swap ! Camera : The front camera is disabled and should be discounted until such time as nokia actually releases firmware supporting it to the public.Storage : SDHC is not unlimitedSoftware : The official Ovi store is not open yet , and maemo-extras is kinda slow on the community approval .
Apps are supposed to install to /opt , but many forget or fail to optify everything so the tiny flash / slowly fills up .
There 's a large backlog of software from previous devices not yet ported to Maemo5 , if ever.There are some unmentioned advantages ; the n900 has tv out , and an IR emitter .
And we get Fennec , so yay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to be a party pooper, but with respect to the N900:RAM: my N900 only has 256MB of RAM.
The other 768 is swap!Camera: The front camera is disabled and should be discounted until such time as nokia actually releases firmware supporting it to the public.Storage: SDHC is not unlimitedSoftware: The official Ovi store is not open yet, and maemo-extras is kinda slow on the community approval.
Apps are supposed to install to /opt, but many forget or fail to optify everything so the tiny flash / slowly fills up.
There's a large backlog of software from previous devices not yet ported to Maemo5, if ever.There are some unmentioned advantages; the n900 has tv out, and an IR emitter.
And we get Fennec, so yay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672340</id>
	<title>Re:4 real issues</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1262804280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My friend's HTC droid works just fine with Exchange - I assume the N1 would as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend 's HTC droid works just fine with Exchange - I assume the N1 would as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend's HTC droid works just fine with Exchange - I assume the N1 would as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671654</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262801640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also I'd question what the article means by Android being "in its infancy".  Android is based on a well-tested OS that's been around for a while (Linux), the first phone running Android came out about a year ago, and the OS is past v2 (though version numbers don't <i>necessarily</i> tell you anything).  I wouldn't call Android a long-running or well-established OS, but it's not like it was slapped together from scratch 6 months ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also I 'd question what the article means by Android being " in its infancy " .
Android is based on a well-tested OS that 's been around for a while ( Linux ) , the first phone running Android came out about a year ago , and the OS is past v2 ( though version numbers do n't necessarily tell you anything ) .
I would n't call Android a long-running or well-established OS , but it 's not like it was slapped together from scratch 6 months ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also I'd question what the article means by Android being "in its infancy".
Android is based on a well-tested OS that's been around for a while (Linux), the first phone running Android came out about a year ago, and the OS is past v2 (though version numbers don't necessarily tell you anything).
I wouldn't call Android a long-running or well-established OS, but it's not like it was slapped together from scratch 6 months ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671668</id>
	<title>The Old iPhone Is Still King Of Hipster Losers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262801700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The POS iPhone is still king for Hipser Losers no matter how hard they are crying over their Starbuck's coffee all over the planet after the unveiling of the amazing Nexus One yesterday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The POS iPhone is still king for Hipser Losers no matter how hard they are crying over their Starbuck 's coffee all over the planet after the unveiling of the amazing Nexus One yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The POS iPhone is still king for Hipser Losers no matter how hard they are crying over their Starbuck's coffee all over the planet after the unveiling of the amazing Nexus One yesterday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671590</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262801340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?</p></div></blockquote><p>If we assume that Google's engineers have to follow the same code quality standards for open-source projects as for their various closed-source projects, then shouldn't we expect the quality of the code base to be equal, whether or not the source is disclosed to the public or not? If this is indeed the case, I think the statement that errors are more visible in an open-source project has merit.</p><blockquote><div><p>After all, when coding an program they know will be open sourced, programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it won't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why would this be the case? Doesn't Google apply the same quality assurance practices (peer reviews and such) to their internal codebase (i.e. those projects that are critical to Google's operation)? I don't think adding vulnerable code to an internal (closed source) project is any more acceptable than to an open-source project.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one ? If we assume that Google 's engineers have to follow the same code quality standards for open-source projects as for their various closed-source projects , then should n't we expect the quality of the code base to be equal , whether or not the source is disclosed to the public or not ?
If this is indeed the case , I think the statement that errors are more visible in an open-source project has merit.After all , when coding an program they know will be open sourced , programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it wo n't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.Why would this be the case ?
Does n't Google apply the same quality assurance practices ( peer reviews and such ) to their internal codebase ( i.e .
those projects that are critical to Google 's operation ) ?
I do n't think adding vulnerable code to an internal ( closed source ) project is any more acceptable than to an open-source project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?If we assume that Google's engineers have to follow the same code quality standards for open-source projects as for their various closed-source projects, then shouldn't we expect the quality of the code base to be equal, whether or not the source is disclosed to the public or not?
If this is indeed the case, I think the statement that errors are more visible in an open-source project has merit.After all, when coding an program they know will be open sourced, programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it won't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.Why would this be the case?
Doesn't Google apply the same quality assurance practices (peer reviews and such) to their internal codebase (i.e.
those projects that are critical to Google's operation)?
I don't think adding vulnerable code to an internal (closed source) project is any more acceptable than to an open-source project.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675072</id>
	<title>Re:Remote data wipe?</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1262773260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Mobile Defense app provides this functionality on several smartphone platforms: <a href="http://www.mobiledefense.com/" title="mobiledefense.com">http://www.mobiledefense.com/</a> [mobiledefense.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mobile Defense app provides this functionality on several smartphone platforms : http : //www.mobiledefense.com/ [ mobiledefense.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mobile Defense app provides this functionality on several smartphone platforms: http://www.mobiledefense.com/ [mobiledefense.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320</id>
	<title>From the article</title>
	<author>Albanach</author>
	<datestamp>1262800320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>-Operating system: The Android operating system is in its infancy and like any new piece of software is likely to be full of security bugs. Android is also open source, so it is highly susceptible to developers with malicious intent finding those bugs quicker than if the OS was closed like the iPhone or blackberry OS. However, the open source nature of the OS should also become a benefit for its security longer term as coders with good intent scrub Android and find the security holes and patch them. Without the source code this job becomes much harder and takes considerably longer. Bottom line is it&rsquo;s a mixed bag, less secure in the short term but able to become more secure faster than a close OS can.</p></div></blockquote><p>Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?</p><p>After all, when coding an program they know will be open sourced, programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it won't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>-Operating system : The Android operating system is in its infancy and like any new piece of software is likely to be full of security bugs .
Android is also open source , so it is highly susceptible to developers with malicious intent finding those bugs quicker than if the OS was closed like the iPhone or blackberry OS .
However , the open source nature of the OS should also become a benefit for its security longer term as coders with good intent scrub Android and find the security holes and patch them .
Without the source code this job becomes much harder and takes considerably longer .
Bottom line is it    s a mixed bag , less secure in the short term but able to become more secure faster than a close OS can.Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one ? After all , when coding an program they know will be open sourced , programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it wo n't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-Operating system: The Android operating system is in its infancy and like any new piece of software is likely to be full of security bugs.
Android is also open source, so it is highly susceptible to developers with malicious intent finding those bugs quicker than if the OS was closed like the iPhone or blackberry OS.
However, the open source nature of the OS should also become a benefit for its security longer term as coders with good intent scrub Android and find the security holes and patch them.
Without the source code this job becomes much harder and takes considerably longer.
Bottom line is it’s a mixed bag, less secure in the short term but able to become more secure faster than a close OS can.Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?After all, when coding an program they know will be open sourced, programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it won't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671244</id>
	<title>I have my doubts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262800140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since it comes from G$$Gle, it will spy on everything you say, hear, or think, and report it to its Italian/CIA double-agent handlers. To protect the privacy of my fellow true patriots, I have been training myself in telepathy and now can successfully communicate with all my pets and my wife with 97.9\% accuracy. If you're serious about privacy in Barack Obama's America, I suggest you do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it comes from G $ $ Gle , it will spy on everything you say , hear , or think , and report it to its Italian/CIA double-agent handlers .
To protect the privacy of my fellow true patriots , I have been training myself in telepathy and now can successfully communicate with all my pets and my wife with 97.9 \ % accuracy .
If you 're serious about privacy in Barack Obama 's America , I suggest you do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it comes from G$$Gle, it will spy on everything you say, hear, or think, and report it to its Italian/CIA double-agent handlers.
To protect the privacy of my fellow true patriots, I have been training myself in telepathy and now can successfully communicate with all my pets and my wife with 97.9\% accuracy.
If you're serious about privacy in Barack Obama's America, I suggest you do the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672500</id>
	<title>Re:I have my doubts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262804940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since it comes from G$$Gle</p></div><p>I'm really curious now. How do you spell "Apple", "Sun", and "IBM"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it comes from G $ $ GleI 'm really curious now .
How do you spell " Apple " , " Sun " , and " IBM " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it comes from G$$GleI'm really curious now.
How do you spell "Apple", "Sun", and "IBM"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673872</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1262811120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also I'd question what the article means by Android being "in its infancy".</p> </div><p>Android right now means Linux + Framework. Sure the framework can be made to run on other OSs, but for now they use Linux.</p><p>No bones about it, the Android framework is definitely in its infancy. Google breaks applications left and right with just about every release. In some cases they even deprecate interfaces without providing an alternative interface; leaving developers and users boned.</p><p>And because of Android's infancy, Verizon's Droid has known Android incompatibilities between the emulator and the GSM variant (Milestone). In fact, that's what was behind Droid's update from 2.0 to 2.01; even requiring an SDK update and new SDK version (5 to 6) for developer's to support. Despite the 2.01 update, Droid still has some broken interfaces because Verizon was forced to write their own Android-CDMA framework hooks - as Android's native CDMA interface wasn't ready at the time.</p><p>While I think Android is excellent and I even own an Android phone, to be absolutely clear, both users and developers are very much feeling both the pains and absolute indifference Google has for them. For example, the Android market application and interfaces available to developers is still third world crap and a far cry from acceptable. Right now developers have to support Android 1.1 (large deprecated now), 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 (obsoleted), 2.01, and soon 2.1. Each has their own quirks, incompatibilities, broken interfaces, new and improved interfaces, screen sizes, etc. Contrary to the recent stream of FUD being spread, with the possible exception of Verizon's breakages, none of this means Android is fracturing and/or forking, but it does make for a huge headache for users and especially developers.</p><p>As for the market, Google can't even properly count the number of actively installed applications for developers. The numbers provided are known to be completely useless and inaccurate. They still don't provide tools to developers. You still can't browse the market from your computer. Application descriptions are laughably terse. The user comment system exists solely to abuse developers and harm sells. Developers can't event reply to criticism - only the most recent. About the only positive thing the Android market has going now is that its easy to remove spam and abusive comments - but that makes one wonder how often legitimate comments are now removed as anyone can mark comments as spam.</p><p>In short, Google still has a very long way to make Android grown up. Sure its continuously getting better, and more stable with each release, but anyone who believes Android is stable and full grown simply doesn't have their ear to the ground to hear the real state of things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also I 'd question what the article means by Android being " in its infancy " .
Android right now means Linux + Framework .
Sure the framework can be made to run on other OSs , but for now they use Linux.No bones about it , the Android framework is definitely in its infancy .
Google breaks applications left and right with just about every release .
In some cases they even deprecate interfaces without providing an alternative interface ; leaving developers and users boned.And because of Android 's infancy , Verizon 's Droid has known Android incompatibilities between the emulator and the GSM variant ( Milestone ) .
In fact , that 's what was behind Droid 's update from 2.0 to 2.01 ; even requiring an SDK update and new SDK version ( 5 to 6 ) for developer 's to support .
Despite the 2.01 update , Droid still has some broken interfaces because Verizon was forced to write their own Android-CDMA framework hooks - as Android 's native CDMA interface was n't ready at the time.While I think Android is excellent and I even own an Android phone , to be absolutely clear , both users and developers are very much feeling both the pains and absolute indifference Google has for them .
For example , the Android market application and interfaces available to developers is still third world crap and a far cry from acceptable .
Right now developers have to support Android 1.1 ( large deprecated now ) , 1.5 , 1.6 , 2.0 ( obsoleted ) , 2.01 , and soon 2.1 .
Each has their own quirks , incompatibilities , broken interfaces , new and improved interfaces , screen sizes , etc .
Contrary to the recent stream of FUD being spread , with the possible exception of Verizon 's breakages , none of this means Android is fracturing and/or forking , but it does make for a huge headache for users and especially developers.As for the market , Google ca n't even properly count the number of actively installed applications for developers .
The numbers provided are known to be completely useless and inaccurate .
They still do n't provide tools to developers .
You still ca n't browse the market from your computer .
Application descriptions are laughably terse .
The user comment system exists solely to abuse developers and harm sells .
Developers ca n't event reply to criticism - only the most recent .
About the only positive thing the Android market has going now is that its easy to remove spam and abusive comments - but that makes one wonder how often legitimate comments are now removed as anyone can mark comments as spam.In short , Google still has a very long way to make Android grown up .
Sure its continuously getting better , and more stable with each release , but anyone who believes Android is stable and full grown simply does n't have their ear to the ground to hear the real state of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also I'd question what the article means by Android being "in its infancy".
Android right now means Linux + Framework.
Sure the framework can be made to run on other OSs, but for now they use Linux.No bones about it, the Android framework is definitely in its infancy.
Google breaks applications left and right with just about every release.
In some cases they even deprecate interfaces without providing an alternative interface; leaving developers and users boned.And because of Android's infancy, Verizon's Droid has known Android incompatibilities between the emulator and the GSM variant (Milestone).
In fact, that's what was behind Droid's update from 2.0 to 2.01; even requiring an SDK update and new SDK version (5 to 6) for developer's to support.
Despite the 2.01 update, Droid still has some broken interfaces because Verizon was forced to write their own Android-CDMA framework hooks - as Android's native CDMA interface wasn't ready at the time.While I think Android is excellent and I even own an Android phone, to be absolutely clear, both users and developers are very much feeling both the pains and absolute indifference Google has for them.
For example, the Android market application and interfaces available to developers is still third world crap and a far cry from acceptable.
Right now developers have to support Android 1.1 (large deprecated now), 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 (obsoleted), 2.01, and soon 2.1.
Each has their own quirks, incompatibilities, broken interfaces, new and improved interfaces, screen sizes, etc.
Contrary to the recent stream of FUD being spread, with the possible exception of Verizon's breakages, none of this means Android is fracturing and/or forking, but it does make for a huge headache for users and especially developers.As for the market, Google can't even properly count the number of actively installed applications for developers.
The numbers provided are known to be completely useless and inaccurate.
They still don't provide tools to developers.
You still can't browse the market from your computer.
Application descriptions are laughably terse.
The user comment system exists solely to abuse developers and harm sells.
Developers can't event reply to criticism - only the most recent.
About the only positive thing the Android market has going now is that its easy to remove spam and abusive comments - but that makes one wonder how often legitimate comments are now removed as anyone can mark comments as spam.In short, Google still has a very long way to make Android grown up.
Sure its continuously getting better, and more stable with each release, but anyone who believes Android is stable and full grown simply doesn't have their ear to the ground to hear the real state of things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673278</id>
	<title>Re:Im going to wait.....</title>
	<author>norminator</author>
	<datestamp>1262808240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I will personally be waiting for the next gen to come around. It will most likely be like the iPhone was. First model was ok but the later were much better...</p></div><p>This is only the first gen for the <b>hardware</b> of the device, which already includes 3G (T-Mobile only, though), which wasn't available on the iPhone until the 2nd gen.  The 3rd Gen iPhone added performance improvements, hardware-wise, but it wasn't fixing any design flaws in the device.  Also, as far as hardware goes, it's built by HTC, and isn't a huge departure from the general design of HTC's other handsets, so there's not likely to be many hardware snags.<br> <br>

As far as software goes though, the Android platform is already on its second generation, and out of that, this is the second Android phone to use Android 2.x.<br> <br>

So basically, this (along with the Droid) is the next gen Android phone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will personally be waiting for the next gen to come around .
It will most likely be like the iPhone was .
First model was ok but the later were much better...This is only the first gen for the hardware of the device , which already includes 3G ( T-Mobile only , though ) , which was n't available on the iPhone until the 2nd gen. The 3rd Gen iPhone added performance improvements , hardware-wise , but it was n't fixing any design flaws in the device .
Also , as far as hardware goes , it 's built by HTC , and is n't a huge departure from the general design of HTC 's other handsets , so there 's not likely to be many hardware snags .
As far as software goes though , the Android platform is already on its second generation , and out of that , this is the second Android phone to use Android 2.x .
So basically , this ( along with the Droid ) is the next gen Android phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will personally be waiting for the next gen to come around.
It will most likely be like the iPhone was.
First model was ok but the later were much better...This is only the first gen for the hardware of the device, which already includes 3G (T-Mobile only, though), which wasn't available on the iPhone until the 2nd gen.  The 3rd Gen iPhone added performance improvements, hardware-wise, but it wasn't fixing any design flaws in the device.
Also, as far as hardware goes, it's built by HTC, and isn't a huge departure from the general design of HTC's other handsets, so there's not likely to be many hardware snags.
As far as software goes though, the Android platform is already on its second generation, and out of that, this is the second Android phone to use Android 2.x.
So basically, this (along with the Droid) is the next gen Android phone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30685044</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262890320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because a phone is the sum of its collective hardware parts and the quality of the software, ergonomics and operating system matter not one bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because a phone is the sum of its collective hardware parts and the quality of the software , ergonomics and operating system matter not one bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because a phone is the sum of its collective hardware parts and the quality of the software, ergonomics and operating system matter not one bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650</id>
	<title>Remote data wipe?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262801640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phones are easy to loose or get nicked.  One of the features enterprises like about the Blackbery is the ability to do a remote datawipe.  On my iPhone I can set a password.  If it's entered incorrectly 10 times, the device automatically wipes itself.  I can also do a remote datawipe as well.  I've tried googling about this feature on the N1 and so far have found nothing.</p><p>Ability to do a remote data wipe is key for the enterprise market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phones are easy to loose or get nicked .
One of the features enterprises like about the Blackbery is the ability to do a remote datawipe .
On my iPhone I can set a password .
If it 's entered incorrectly 10 times , the device automatically wipes itself .
I can also do a remote datawipe as well .
I 've tried googling about this feature on the N1 and so far have found nothing.Ability to do a remote data wipe is key for the enterprise market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phones are easy to loose or get nicked.
One of the features enterprises like about the Blackbery is the ability to do a remote datawipe.
On my iPhone I can set a password.
If it's entered incorrectly 10 times, the device automatically wipes itself.
I can also do a remote datawipe as well.
I've tried googling about this feature on the N1 and so far have found nothing.Ability to do a remote data wipe is key for the enterprise market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671496</id>
	<title>Well, by definition it has to be Human</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262801040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the Nexus One, after all.  That makes it by definition More Human Than Human, as per Messr. Zombie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the Nexus One , after all .
That makes it by definition More Human Than Human , as per Messr .
Zombie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the Nexus One, after all.
That makes it by definition More Human Than Human, as per Messr.
Zombie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671796</id>
	<title>Remote datawipe does exist on Android.</title>
	<author>tweek</author>
	<datestamp>1262802240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the default Exchange integration on Android 2.0 doesn't support all of the Exchange security features, Touchdown ( <a href="http://www.nitrodesk.com/dk\_touchdownFeatures.aspx" title="nitrodesk.com">http://www.nitrodesk.com/dk\_touchdownFeatures.aspx</a> [nitrodesk.com] ) DOES. I used it initially on my DROID and am currently testing the native stuff now that Motorola released a corporate directory app on the app store. Remote wipe *IS* supported by the native android ActiveSync implementation but not PIN security IIRC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the default Exchange integration on Android 2.0 does n't support all of the Exchange security features , Touchdown ( http : //www.nitrodesk.com/dk \ _touchdownFeatures.aspx [ nitrodesk.com ] ) DOES .
I used it initially on my DROID and am currently testing the native stuff now that Motorola released a corporate directory app on the app store .
Remote wipe * IS * supported by the native android ActiveSync implementation but not PIN security IIRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the default Exchange integration on Android 2.0 doesn't support all of the Exchange security features, Touchdown ( http://www.nitrodesk.com/dk\_touchdownFeatures.aspx [nitrodesk.com] ) DOES.
I used it initially on my DROID and am currently testing the native stuff now that Motorola released a corporate directory app on the app store.
Remote wipe *IS* supported by the native android ActiveSync implementation but not PIN security IIRC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30681208</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>morgajel</author>
	<datestamp>1262872440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick, someone knows what they're talking about- STONE HIM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick , someone knows what they 're talking about- STONE HIM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick, someone knows what they're talking about- STONE HIM!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673026</id>
	<title>Re:Nexus One vs iPhone 3Gs vs. N900</title>
	<author>naveenkumar.s</author>
	<datestamp>1262807160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Java support: yes | no | yes</p></div><p>Java on Android is Dalvik, right? You get "real" Java with N900 (not J2ME).</p><p>Nexus One's TTS seems like a killer feature</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java support : yes | no | yesJava on Android is Dalvik , right ?
You get " real " Java with N900 ( not J2ME ) .Nexus One 's TTS seems like a killer feature</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java support: yes | no | yesJava on Android is Dalvik, right?
You get "real" Java with N900 (not J2ME).Nexus One's TTS seems like a killer feature
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672302</id>
	<title>Application signing is worthless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262804160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The application signing is worthless because they are self-signed certs?  WTF is this guy smoking.  Just because someone pays a CA to sign their cert doesn't make it magically more secure.  I'll be honest, i think CAs should die off (in their current forms).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The application signing is worthless because they are self-signed certs ?
WTF is this guy smoking .
Just because someone pays a CA to sign their cert does n't make it magically more secure .
I 'll be honest , i think CAs should die off ( in their current forms ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The application signing is worthless because they are self-signed certs?
WTF is this guy smoking.
Just because someone pays a CA to sign their cert doesn't make it magically more secure.
I'll be honest, i think CAs should die off (in their current forms).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674074</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1262768700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is parent modded flamebait? Nothing stated is false. Hell, he even provided a link to a video showing Flash on the N1 and raises a legitimate, topical point of contention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is parent modded flamebait ?
Nothing stated is false .
Hell , he even provided a link to a video showing Flash on the N1 and raises a legitimate , topical point of contention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is parent modded flamebait?
Nothing stated is false.
Hell, he even provided a link to a video showing Flash on the N1 and raises a legitimate, topical point of contention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675236</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1262773980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contrary to popular belief, a kernel does not an OS make.</p><p>While I'm not real concerned that the Linux kernel will be exploited,  I'd rate my concern about on par with the NT kernel being exploited honestly.</p><p>The problem isn't the kernel though, the problem is that all the supporting code, many applications which are just as privileged as the kernel effectively are relatively new, the general structure is new.  We're not talking about Slackware with the standard GNU tool set and KDE here, we're talking about the kernel and a radically different userland.</p><p>Does that make it unsafe?  Of course not, BUT it means its certainly not as well examined as its standard Linux desktop brothers.  Its likely that more people have seen the code to things like Explorer.exe and the IE internals at this point than have seen the Android code base, based on age alone.</p><p>Does that make it unsafe?  Of course not,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:), if all things were equal (which they aren't) it would just mean that its likely that Android is less safe than the alternative.</p><p>I know that short term, Open Source is less secure.  Throw the source out there and there are 3 types of people who find bugs.</p><p>1) The user who finds a bug by complete accident.  This happens in all software so we ignore it, they find bugs, a few report them, most just get annoyed and ignore them, very few know enough to even report them in such a way that someone will bother to look for the bug.<br>2) The malicious hacker, motivated by financial or political greed or something like that.  These guys get paid<br>3) The good hacker, motivated by self interest to find bugs and make the software better for themselves and/or others.  There are lots of reasons these guys do what they do, most of it is personal motivations that while they do the work and some work hard as hell to find and fix bugs, most people just do it as a hobby.  There are a few that get paid to do it, but not a lot.</p><p>1 is useless, and there are far more 2 than 3, whats worse is that #2 probably gets paid better than #3.  It is simply a fact that open source <strong>can</strong> be exploited faster.  It is also a fact that it is <strong>possible</strong> for more people to find and implement fixes before it gets found by a malicious attacker. However, once found and fixed, because of its open source nature, every hacker instantly has the information needed to find and exploit the bug on unpatched devices, so thats a downside, short term.  Even as an open source advocate, I have no delusions about the security aspect of open source.  Regardless of whats said, it only has a potential to be more secure, it isn't by default just because its open source.  The fact is, closed source software can have massive bugs that go unpatched and unexploited years simply because no one notices them.  Security through obscurity?  Certainly, but then, if you actually understand how encryption works, you know that encryption as we know it today is security through obscurity with calculated odds.</p><p>I have more faith in high profile old code which has been beaten and battered and FIXED than I do new code, open or closed source, doesn't matter, the same reasoning applies.</p><p>Do I think Windows Mobile or the iPhone OS are more secure than Android?  Yes, even though they are closed source they have been attacked by more people, many of those people were happy to share their exploits in order to allow others to get more functionality out of the device, for the most part though, these OSes now have been hardened against the easy to find and exploit attacks.  The hard to find attacks that would be made a lot easier with source aren't all that likely to be exploited, so they are probably safer for now.  10 years down the road, the tables might be turned and Androids open nature would have not only resulted in the easy bugs being found and fixed, but also a lot of the harder ones.  Either way, they'll probably all result in about the same number of exploits turning up as a ratio of new code added over time a</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrary to popular belief , a kernel does not an OS make.While I 'm not real concerned that the Linux kernel will be exploited , I 'd rate my concern about on par with the NT kernel being exploited honestly.The problem is n't the kernel though , the problem is that all the supporting code , many applications which are just as privileged as the kernel effectively are relatively new , the general structure is new .
We 're not talking about Slackware with the standard GNU tool set and KDE here , we 're talking about the kernel and a radically different userland.Does that make it unsafe ?
Of course not , BUT it means its certainly not as well examined as its standard Linux desktop brothers .
Its likely that more people have seen the code to things like Explorer.exe and the IE internals at this point than have seen the Android code base , based on age alone.Does that make it unsafe ?
Of course not , : ) , if all things were equal ( which they are n't ) it would just mean that its likely that Android is less safe than the alternative.I know that short term , Open Source is less secure .
Throw the source out there and there are 3 types of people who find bugs.1 ) The user who finds a bug by complete accident .
This happens in all software so we ignore it , they find bugs , a few report them , most just get annoyed and ignore them , very few know enough to even report them in such a way that someone will bother to look for the bug.2 ) The malicious hacker , motivated by financial or political greed or something like that .
These guys get paid3 ) The good hacker , motivated by self interest to find bugs and make the software better for themselves and/or others .
There are lots of reasons these guys do what they do , most of it is personal motivations that while they do the work and some work hard as hell to find and fix bugs , most people just do it as a hobby .
There are a few that get paid to do it , but not a lot.1 is useless , and there are far more 2 than 3 , whats worse is that # 2 probably gets paid better than # 3 .
It is simply a fact that open source can be exploited faster .
It is also a fact that it is possible for more people to find and implement fixes before it gets found by a malicious attacker .
However , once found and fixed , because of its open source nature , every hacker instantly has the information needed to find and exploit the bug on unpatched devices , so thats a downside , short term .
Even as an open source advocate , I have no delusions about the security aspect of open source .
Regardless of whats said , it only has a potential to be more secure , it is n't by default just because its open source .
The fact is , closed source software can have massive bugs that go unpatched and unexploited years simply because no one notices them .
Security through obscurity ?
Certainly , but then , if you actually understand how encryption works , you know that encryption as we know it today is security through obscurity with calculated odds.I have more faith in high profile old code which has been beaten and battered and FIXED than I do new code , open or closed source , does n't matter , the same reasoning applies.Do I think Windows Mobile or the iPhone OS are more secure than Android ?
Yes , even though they are closed source they have been attacked by more people , many of those people were happy to share their exploits in order to allow others to get more functionality out of the device , for the most part though , these OSes now have been hardened against the easy to find and exploit attacks .
The hard to find attacks that would be made a lot easier with source are n't all that likely to be exploited , so they are probably safer for now .
10 years down the road , the tables might be turned and Androids open nature would have not only resulted in the easy bugs being found and fixed , but also a lot of the harder ones .
Either way , they 'll probably all result in about the same number of exploits turning up as a ratio of new code added over time a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrary to popular belief, a kernel does not an OS make.While I'm not real concerned that the Linux kernel will be exploited,  I'd rate my concern about on par with the NT kernel being exploited honestly.The problem isn't the kernel though, the problem is that all the supporting code, many applications which are just as privileged as the kernel effectively are relatively new, the general structure is new.
We're not talking about Slackware with the standard GNU tool set and KDE here, we're talking about the kernel and a radically different userland.Does that make it unsafe?
Of course not, BUT it means its certainly not as well examined as its standard Linux desktop brothers.
Its likely that more people have seen the code to things like Explorer.exe and the IE internals at this point than have seen the Android code base, based on age alone.Does that make it unsafe?
Of course not, :), if all things were equal (which they aren't) it would just mean that its likely that Android is less safe than the alternative.I know that short term, Open Source is less secure.
Throw the source out there and there are 3 types of people who find bugs.1) The user who finds a bug by complete accident.
This happens in all software so we ignore it, they find bugs, a few report them, most just get annoyed and ignore them, very few know enough to even report them in such a way that someone will bother to look for the bug.2) The malicious hacker, motivated by financial or political greed or something like that.
These guys get paid3) The good hacker, motivated by self interest to find bugs and make the software better for themselves and/or others.
There are lots of reasons these guys do what they do, most of it is personal motivations that while they do the work and some work hard as hell to find and fix bugs, most people just do it as a hobby.
There are a few that get paid to do it, but not a lot.1 is useless, and there are far more 2 than 3, whats worse is that #2 probably gets paid better than #3.
It is simply a fact that open source can be exploited faster.
It is also a fact that it is possible for more people to find and implement fixes before it gets found by a malicious attacker.
However, once found and fixed, because of its open source nature, every hacker instantly has the information needed to find and exploit the bug on unpatched devices, so thats a downside, short term.
Even as an open source advocate, I have no delusions about the security aspect of open source.
Regardless of whats said, it only has a potential to be more secure, it isn't by default just because its open source.
The fact is, closed source software can have massive bugs that go unpatched and unexploited years simply because no one notices them.
Security through obscurity?
Certainly, but then, if you actually understand how encryption works, you know that encryption as we know it today is security through obscurity with calculated odds.I have more faith in high profile old code which has been beaten and battered and FIXED than I do new code, open or closed source, doesn't matter, the same reasoning applies.Do I think Windows Mobile or the iPhone OS are more secure than Android?
Yes, even though they are closed source they have been attacked by more people, many of those people were happy to share their exploits in order to allow others to get more functionality out of the device, for the most part though, these OSes now have been hardened against the easy to find and exploit attacks.
The hard to find attacks that would be made a lot easier with source aren't all that likely to be exploited, so they are probably safer for now.
10 years down the road, the tables might be turned and Androids open nature would have not only resulted in the easy bugs being found and fixed, but also a lot of the harder ones.
Either way, they'll probably all result in about the same number of exploits turning up as a ratio of new code added over time a</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675896</id>
	<title>I think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262776800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>White Zombies don't need none of that security crap...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>White Zombies do n't need none of that security crap.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>White Zombies don't need none of that security crap...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673748</id>
	<title>Re:4 real issues</title>
	<author>Enry</author>
	<datestamp>1262810520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Separate server? No.  Works with ActiveSync</p><p>How well does it work?  I have both the standard application and a third party app (TouchDown) installed on my Droid.  I like Touchdown better as it supports the security models and offers a number of features that the native exchange client doesn't (like signatures).</p><p>The base e-mail app is quite good.  Where Android is really shining for me is the integration.  Contacts from gmail, exchange, and facebook get unified in one contact list.  When you edit an individual contact, you see information for each of the sources, but if gmail and exchange have the same phone number for a contact, you'll only see it once.  Each phone number can be called with one touch either from your cell phone # or google voice.  The gesture-based screen locking is quite good and better than having to type in a password every time.</p><p>There's a few things the blackberry does better, but they mostly rely on the fact there's a separate blackberry server.  For example, I can have messages sent to the blackberry with level 1 notification and have the blackberry treat that message differently.  I can also set up pattern matching to select messages I *don't* want forwarded to the blackberry, but want to remain in outlook.  The droid (and touchdown) isn't able to do either of these things yet, though that seems to be more a limitation of activesync than android itself since I understand the iPhone has the same problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Separate server ?
No. Works with ActiveSyncHow well does it work ?
I have both the standard application and a third party app ( TouchDown ) installed on my Droid .
I like Touchdown better as it supports the security models and offers a number of features that the native exchange client does n't ( like signatures ) .The base e-mail app is quite good .
Where Android is really shining for me is the integration .
Contacts from gmail , exchange , and facebook get unified in one contact list .
When you edit an individual contact , you see information for each of the sources , but if gmail and exchange have the same phone number for a contact , you 'll only see it once .
Each phone number can be called with one touch either from your cell phone # or google voice .
The gesture-based screen locking is quite good and better than having to type in a password every time.There 's a few things the blackberry does better , but they mostly rely on the fact there 's a separate blackberry server .
For example , I can have messages sent to the blackberry with level 1 notification and have the blackberry treat that message differently .
I can also set up pattern matching to select messages I * do n't * want forwarded to the blackberry , but want to remain in outlook .
The droid ( and touchdown ) is n't able to do either of these things yet , though that seems to be more a limitation of activesync than android itself since I understand the iPhone has the same problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Separate server?
No.  Works with ActiveSyncHow well does it work?
I have both the standard application and a third party app (TouchDown) installed on my Droid.
I like Touchdown better as it supports the security models and offers a number of features that the native exchange client doesn't (like signatures).The base e-mail app is quite good.
Where Android is really shining for me is the integration.
Contacts from gmail, exchange, and facebook get unified in one contact list.
When you edit an individual contact, you see information for each of the sources, but if gmail and exchange have the same phone number for a contact, you'll only see it once.
Each phone number can be called with one touch either from your cell phone # or google voice.
The gesture-based screen locking is quite good and better than having to type in a password every time.There's a few things the blackberry does better, but they mostly rely on the fact there's a separate blackberry server.
For example, I can have messages sent to the blackberry with level 1 notification and have the blackberry treat that message differently.
I can also set up pattern matching to select messages I *don't* want forwarded to the blackberry, but want to remain in outlook.
The droid (and touchdown) isn't able to do either of these things yet, though that seems to be more a limitation of activesync than android itself since I understand the iPhone has the same problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673388</id>
	<title>Re:4 real issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262808780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean it can't handle encryption? It has an IPSec VPN client that works like a charm, and supports using SSL with Exchange. Can you elaborate?</p><p>FYI, the mail app is one of my favorite applications on the iPhone. Originally had Treos for work and I don't get why Apples software works BETTER than Microsofts at interfacing with their own damn product. It renders emails much more akin to how you'd see them at a desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean it ca n't handle encryption ?
It has an IPSec VPN client that works like a charm , and supports using SSL with Exchange .
Can you elaborate ? FYI , the mail app is one of my favorite applications on the iPhone .
Originally had Treos for work and I do n't get why Apples software works BETTER than Microsofts at interfacing with their own damn product .
It renders emails much more akin to how you 'd see them at a desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean it can't handle encryption?
It has an IPSec VPN client that works like a charm, and supports using SSL with Exchange.
Can you elaborate?FYI, the mail app is one of my favorite applications on the iPhone.
Originally had Treos for work and I don't get why Apples software works BETTER than Microsofts at interfacing with their own damn product.
It renders emails much more akin to how you'd see them at a desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672764</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1262806020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4GB vs 16GB or 32GB storage</p><p>by the time you add more storage to the N1 it's more expensive. and it pretty much locked down to T-Mo since it can't use AT&amp;T's 3G frequencies. and T-Mo sucks. and with all the corporate/work related apps in the app store Google's limit on the number of apps is dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4GB vs 16GB or 32GB storageby the time you add more storage to the N1 it 's more expensive .
and it pretty much locked down to T-Mo since it ca n't use AT&amp;T 's 3G frequencies .
and T-Mo sucks .
and with all the corporate/work related apps in the app store Google 's limit on the number of apps is dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4GB vs 16GB or 32GB storageby the time you add more storage to the N1 it's more expensive.
and it pretty much locked down to T-Mo since it can't use AT&amp;T's 3G frequencies.
and T-Mo sucks.
and with all the corporate/work related apps in the app store Google's limit on the number of apps is dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671490</id>
	<title>RIM's bread and butter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262800980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I increasingly hear this question from both my IT peers and users alike "Why does our company stick with Blackberry when phone XYZ is so much better?" The long and the short of it is SECURITY. I mean when India insisted RIM provide them with a back door so they could spy on BB users RIM's response was "We don't even have a back door". I would love to see a smartphone come out with all of the security features RIM has had for years so I could offer it to the Executive VP instead of telling him "I'm sorry but since you receive strictly private emails you are not allowed to use anything but a Blackberry" and having him start making calls and ultimately buying it on his expense account connecting it to the network in rogue fashion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I increasingly hear this question from both my IT peers and users alike " Why does our company stick with Blackberry when phone XYZ is so much better ?
" The long and the short of it is SECURITY .
I mean when India insisted RIM provide them with a back door so they could spy on BB users RIM 's response was " We do n't even have a back door " .
I would love to see a smartphone come out with all of the security features RIM has had for years so I could offer it to the Executive VP instead of telling him " I 'm sorry but since you receive strictly private emails you are not allowed to use anything but a Blackberry " and having him start making calls and ultimately buying it on his expense account connecting it to the network in rogue fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I increasingly hear this question from both my IT peers and users alike "Why does our company stick with Blackberry when phone XYZ is so much better?
" The long and the short of it is SECURITY.
I mean when India insisted RIM provide them with a back door so they could spy on BB users RIM's response was "We don't even have a back door".
I would love to see a smartphone come out with all of the security features RIM has had for years so I could offer it to the Executive VP instead of telling him "I'm sorry but since you receive strictly private emails you are not allowed to use anything but a Blackberry" and having him start making calls and ultimately buying it on his expense account connecting it to the network in rogue fashion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671544</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>jimbobborg</author>
	<datestamp>1262801160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I find this point annoying.  But the article is from Network World, by the "Cisco Security Expert."  But the Nexus One gets 4 of the 9 phone security requirements, including screen lock, VPN, wireless security, and application sandboxing.  The ones missed, besides the OS being open source, include application signing, corporate enforcement of security settings, hardware data encryption, and remote wiping capability.  I would hope that the data encryption would be added at some point, and be better than the USB thumb drives from the story yesterday.  I'm sure the others can be added later, although one of the nice things about this is not requiring the blessing of Google to run an app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I find this point annoying .
But the article is from Network World , by the " Cisco Security Expert .
" But the Nexus One gets 4 of the 9 phone security requirements , including screen lock , VPN , wireless security , and application sandboxing .
The ones missed , besides the OS being open source , include application signing , corporate enforcement of security settings , hardware data encryption , and remote wiping capability .
I would hope that the data encryption would be added at some point , and be better than the USB thumb drives from the story yesterday .
I 'm sure the others can be added later , although one of the nice things about this is not requiring the blessing of Google to run an app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I find this point annoying.
But the article is from Network World, by the "Cisco Security Expert.
"  But the Nexus One gets 4 of the 9 phone security requirements, including screen lock, VPN, wireless security, and application sandboxing.
The ones missed, besides the OS being open source, include application signing, corporate enforcement of security settings, hardware data encryption, and remote wiping capability.
I would hope that the data encryption would be added at some point, and be better than the USB thumb drives from the story yesterday.
I'm sure the others can be added later, although one of the nice things about this is not requiring the blessing of Google to run an app.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671852</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>tweek</author>
	<datestamp>1262802480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The attack vector for mobile flash on android is going to be insanely hard to get around. The browser is already sandboxed. It's quite likely that the flash plugin will be a separate sandboxed application as well. The ONLY android permissions that flash needs are media related and MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE geolocation information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The attack vector for mobile flash on android is going to be insanely hard to get around .
The browser is already sandboxed .
It 's quite likely that the flash plugin will be a separate sandboxed application as well .
The ONLY android permissions that flash needs are media related and MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE geolocation information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The attack vector for mobile flash on android is going to be insanely hard to get around.
The browser is already sandboxed.
It's quite likely that the flash plugin will be a separate sandboxed application as well.
The ONLY android permissions that flash needs are media related and MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE geolocation information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675790</id>
	<title>Re:From the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an article????  You must be new here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an article ? ? ? ?
You must be new here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an article????
You must be new here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674706</id>
	<title>Re:Nexus One vs iPhone 3Gs vs. N900</title>
	<author>Brian Quinlan</author>
	<datestamp>1262771520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what your point is here.</p><p>The N900 has 45\% more volume than the N1 but also has a few more features (but mostly they seems pretty similar). Is that really surprising?</p><p>In other news my desktop has a bigger HD than my laptop, my apartment has better rain protection than my tent,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Cheers,<br>Brian</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what your point is here.The N900 has 45 \ % more volume than the N1 but also has a few more features ( but mostly they seems pretty similar ) .
Is that really surprising ? In other news my desktop has a bigger HD than my laptop , my apartment has better rain protection than my tent , ...Cheers,Brian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what your point is here.The N900 has 45\% more volume than the N1 but also has a few more features (but mostly they seems pretty similar).
Is that really surprising?In other news my desktop has a bigger HD than my laptop, my apartment has better rain protection than my tent, ...Cheers,Brian</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30680356</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>Hasney</author>
	<datestamp>1262861040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>N1 has no multitouch though. Since there is no physical keyboard, thats a dealbreaker for me.</p><p>Add in multi-touch and I'm there Day 1 it hits the UK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>N1 has no multitouch though .
Since there is no physical keyboard , thats a dealbreaker for me.Add in multi-touch and I 'm there Day 1 it hits the UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>N1 has no multitouch though.
Since there is no physical keyboard, thats a dealbreaker for me.Add in multi-touch and I'm there Day 1 it hits the UK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673484</id>
	<title>Re:Application signing is worthless?</title>
	<author>Rysc</author>
	<datestamp>1262809140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is my assumption that certs are required for two purposes: Providing a unique, unambiguous identifier and to allow for revocation in case of malware. Self signed certs are OK for the former, but what about the latter?</p><p>In any event, however kool-aid it may be, a lot of people (read: companies and governments) like verifiable certs with known CAs. Adding an option to require this would make them happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is my assumption that certs are required for two purposes : Providing a unique , unambiguous identifier and to allow for revocation in case of malware .
Self signed certs are OK for the former , but what about the latter ? In any event , however kool-aid it may be , a lot of people ( read : companies and governments ) like verifiable certs with known CAs .
Adding an option to require this would make them happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is my assumption that certs are required for two purposes: Providing a unique, unambiguous identifier and to allow for revocation in case of malware.
Self signed certs are OK for the former, but what about the latter?In any event, however kool-aid it may be, a lot of people (read: companies and governments) like verifiable certs with known CAs.
Adding an option to require this would make them happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672002</id>
	<title>SMIME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No SMIME?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No SMIME ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No SMIME?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674686</id>
	<title>Re:RIM's bread and butter</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1262771400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For corporate-issued phones I have no issues with remote/wiping, security attestation, etc.</p><p>However, in many cases the model is more one of worker-provides-phone and company-allows-access.  In that kind of a scenario I'd never use an email program that allowed my employer to have control over my phone.  Fortunately, as long as I own the hardware and they don't go TPM, that will never be a problem for me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For corporate-issued phones I have no issues with remote/wiping , security attestation , etc.However , in many cases the model is more one of worker-provides-phone and company-allows-access .
In that kind of a scenario I 'd never use an email program that allowed my employer to have control over my phone .
Fortunately , as long as I own the hardware and they do n't go TPM , that will never be a problem for me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For corporate-issued phones I have no issues with remote/wiping, security attestation, etc.However, in many cases the model is more one of worker-provides-phone and company-allows-access.
In that kind of a scenario I'd never use an email program that allowed my employer to have control over my phone.
Fortunately, as long as I own the hardware and they don't go TPM, that will never be a problem for me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671900</id>
	<title>Re:Remote data wipe?</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1262802660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How well does remote wiping work with SD cards? Steal the phone, pop out SD card, profit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How well does remote wiping work with SD cards ?
Steal the phone , pop out SD card , profit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How well does remote wiping work with SD cards?
Steal the phone, pop out SD card, profit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30685018</id>
	<title>False Dichotomy, of sorts</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262890260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm a consumer, I want a consumer device, not an enterprise device. If I'm one of those self-important crackberry nerds at work who can't refrain from bringing work: home, on the plane with me, to the restaurant, then I'll get an enterprise device. Frankly, I could care less that my iPhone added a remote wipe feature and whatever other crappy enterprise features I don't need for my consumer device.</p><p>So, I guess it depends on how the Nexus One is marketed. If it is marketed as a consumer device and lacks enterprise features, then what's the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm a consumer , I want a consumer device , not an enterprise device .
If I 'm one of those self-important crackberry nerds at work who ca n't refrain from bringing work : home , on the plane with me , to the restaurant , then I 'll get an enterprise device .
Frankly , I could care less that my iPhone added a remote wipe feature and whatever other crappy enterprise features I do n't need for my consumer device.So , I guess it depends on how the Nexus One is marketed .
If it is marketed as a consumer device and lacks enterprise features , then what 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm a consumer, I want a consumer device, not an enterprise device.
If I'm one of those self-important crackberry nerds at work who can't refrain from bringing work: home, on the plane with me, to the restaurant, then I'll get an enterprise device.
Frankly, I could care less that my iPhone added a remote wipe feature and whatever other crappy enterprise features I don't need for my consumer device.So, I guess it depends on how the Nexus One is marketed.
If it is marketed as a consumer device and lacks enterprise features, then what's the problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672016</id>
	<title>Re:Good prediction</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1262803020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only thing funny about this statement is how it seems to totally not get the entire point of the article.
<br> <br>
The point being, of course, that just because it's made by Google doesn't instantly mean that its perfectly secure.
<br> <br>
Until security becomes a primary feature, it generally will take a backseat to features leading up to an initial release, in my own experience.  Then again, this article is chock full of assumptions, and a security assessment based on assumptions is pretty much useless, so who knows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing funny about this statement is how it seems to totally not get the entire point of the article .
The point being , of course , that just because it 's made by Google does n't instantly mean that its perfectly secure .
Until security becomes a primary feature , it generally will take a backseat to features leading up to an initial release , in my own experience .
Then again , this article is chock full of assumptions , and a security assessment based on assumptions is pretty much useless , so who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing funny about this statement is how it seems to totally not get the entire point of the article.
The point being, of course, that just because it's made by Google doesn't instantly mean that its perfectly secure.
Until security becomes a primary feature, it generally will take a backseat to features leading up to an initial release, in my own experience.
Then again, this article is chock full of assumptions, and a security assessment based on assumptions is pretty much useless, so who knows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672528</id>
	<title>Re:N1 vs Iphone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262805060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>521MB RAM vs 256MB RAM</p><p>800x480 vs 480x320</p><p>1Ghz vs 600Mhz</p><p>5MP vs 3MP</p><p>AMOLED vs TFT</p><p>To top it off the nexus one is a slimmer device.</p><p>Need I say anymore? The iPhone is no longer king! Hoorah!</p></div><p>512 MB internal storage + 4GB flash card vs 16GB (32GB with upgrade)</p><p>With all the apps/music/videos that people like to carry around with them now days, storage space kind of matters now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>521MB RAM vs 256MB RAM800x480 vs 480x3201Ghz vs 600Mhz5MP vs 3MPAMOLED vs TFTTo top it off the nexus one is a slimmer device.Need I say anymore ?
The iPhone is no longer king !
Hoorah ! 512 MB internal storage + 4GB flash card vs 16GB ( 32GB with upgrade ) With all the apps/music/videos that people like to carry around with them now days , storage space kind of matters now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>521MB RAM vs 256MB RAM800x480 vs 480x3201Ghz vs 600Mhz5MP vs 3MPAMOLED vs TFTTo top it off the nexus one is a slimmer device.Need I say anymore?
The iPhone is no longer king!
Hoorah!512 MB internal storage + 4GB flash card vs 16GB (32GB with upgrade)With all the apps/music/videos that people like to carry around with them now days, storage space kind of matters now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673858</id>
	<title>Re:4 real issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262811000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My friend's HTC droid works just fine with Exchange - I assume the N1 would as well.</p></div><p>In order to use anything with the Android 2.0+ OS with Exchange, either the device security restrictions on the Exchange server have to be disabled, or you have to purchase a 3rd party app.</p><p>Android 2.0 doesn't currently support remote wipe via Exchange or the password requirements for locking the device.</p><p>This is something I find extremely perplexing considering that Google licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft recently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend 's HTC droid works just fine with Exchange - I assume the N1 would as well.In order to use anything with the Android 2.0 + OS with Exchange , either the device security restrictions on the Exchange server have to be disabled , or you have to purchase a 3rd party app.Android 2.0 does n't currently support remote wipe via Exchange or the password requirements for locking the device.This is something I find extremely perplexing considering that Google licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft recently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend's HTC droid works just fine with Exchange - I assume the N1 would as well.In order to use anything with the Android 2.0+ OS with Exchange, either the device security restrictions on the Exchange server have to be disabled, or you have to purchase a 3rd party app.Android 2.0 doesn't currently support remote wipe via Exchange or the password requirements for locking the device.This is something I find extremely perplexing considering that Google licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft recently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671514</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262801100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, Lego still stacks up better than anything else.  Therefore Lego should produce all our computer and communications hardware.  <p>I for one welcome our new Mindstorm(tm) overlords having a grammar war over Lego/Legos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Lego still stacks up better than anything else .
Therefore Lego should produce all our computer and communications hardware .
I for one welcome our new Mindstorm ( tm ) overlords having a grammar war over Lego/Legos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Lego still stacks up better than anything else.
Therefore Lego should produce all our computer and communications hardware.
I for one welcome our new Mindstorm(tm) overlords having a grammar war over Lego/Legos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671314</id>
	<title>Obvious article is obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262800320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the N1 is targeted at the corporate world.   Google seems to have larger mobile plans than this, so I would expect some corporate type product in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the N1 is targeted at the corporate world .
Google seems to have larger mobile plans than this , so I would expect some corporate type product in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the N1 is targeted at the corporate world.
Google seems to have larger mobile plans than this, so I would expect some corporate type product in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672826</id>
	<title>Re:4 real issues</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1262806320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the 3GS can handle encryption and if you have exchange 2007 SP1 you can force the phone to encrypt the data which means any pre-3GS devices won't work</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the 3GS can handle encryption and if you have exchange 2007 SP1 you can force the phone to encrypt the data which means any pre-3GS devices wo n't work</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 3GS can handle encryption and if you have exchange 2007 SP1 you can force the phone to encrypt the data which means any pre-3GS devices won't work</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30680074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30676652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30680356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30676352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30681208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30685268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30685044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30690002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1425210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30690002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30676652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673872
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30675498
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30681208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30680074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30676352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30685268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30685044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30674706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30680356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1425210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30671448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30673858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1425210.30672826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
