<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_10_1529234</id>
	<title>Mozilla To Ditch Firefox Extensions?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263140160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Although <a href="http://www.glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?post/2010/01/07/Jetpack">some have raised concerns</a> about how sane switching to Jetpack is, it seems that <a href="https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/">Mozilla's new gadget</a> is bound to <a href="http://steelgryphon.com/blog/2010/01/09/on-personas-and-themes/">replace the powerful extension mechanism we know</a>. Maybe Mozilla wants to <a href="http://blog.getfirebug.com/2010/01/09/firefox-ending-support-for-extensions/">replace all the great add-ons we use daily</a> with gadgets that add an entry to the Tools menu, or maybe they just want to draw thousands of inexperienced developers into putting together a bunch of HTML and CSS that won't integrate in the UI. It seems to me that in light of recent decisions <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/02/1440214/Firefox-40-Goes-Chrome-New-UI-In-Q4-2010">we've discussed before</a>, Mozilla isn't going in the right direction. What do you think ?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Although some have raised concerns about how sane switching to Jetpack is , it seems that Mozilla 's new gadget is bound to replace the powerful extension mechanism we know .
Maybe Mozilla wants to replace all the great add-ons we use daily with gadgets that add an entry to the Tools menu , or maybe they just want to draw thousands of inexperienced developers into putting together a bunch of HTML and CSS that wo n't integrate in the UI .
It seems to me that in light of recent decisions we 've discussed before , Mozilla is n't going in the right direction .
What do you think ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Although some have raised concerns about how sane switching to Jetpack is, it seems that Mozilla's new gadget is bound to replace the powerful extension mechanism we know.
Maybe Mozilla wants to replace all the great add-ons we use daily with gadgets that add an entry to the Tools menu, or maybe they just want to draw thousands of inexperienced developers into putting together a bunch of HTML and CSS that won't integrate in the UI.
It seems to me that in light of recent decisions we've discussed before, Mozilla isn't going in the right direction.
What do you think ?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715906</id>
	<title>wrong direction for a long time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263152760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mozilla has been going in the wrong direction since they sold their sole to AOL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Use Opera .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mozilla has been going in the wrong direction since they sold their sole to AOL .Use Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mozilla has been going in the wrong direction since they sold their sole to AOL .Use Opera .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719866</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla has been floundering for a long time</title>
	<author>duffbeer703</author>
	<datestamp>1263144420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I said "in a sane way".</p><p>Let's say you have a bunch of WebDevs who love using some popular extensions, and you'd like to provide them with a fully prepped workstation every time a box is built. (I have an SLA that calls for our users to have a fully functional new PC ready to go within 40 minutes of unboxing, and we unbox about 500 PCs/week.) Too bad -- unless you have a crew of smart masochist admins who spend a few hours/days packaging up a solution. (We can do this in minutes for 95\% of Windows, Linux and even Mac apps via an API or consistent install mechanism) One exception: if you get lucky, Ubuntu has 20 people who package a few select extensions.</p><p>Or lets say you have a global distributed network linked by MPLS or Frame Relay with limited bandwidth. You have a population of Firefox users who run with admin rights (really bad practice on any platform btw), and would like to setup mirror servers for the Firefox update mechanism. Too bad -- you can't do that either, unless you hack each update and each client as well.</p><p>Or lets say you want to migrate Firefox user settings from workstation to workstation, or between VDI sessions or between linux terminal servers. Too bad -- Mozilla creates a directory with random characters for user profile data.</p><p>Or lets say you want to provision proxy settings? Again, random profile directory, sorry.</p><p>Or maybe you want to disable auto-update, because a critical 3rd party application won't work with Firefox 3.5 for another month. Again, you're fucked, unless you jump through hoops.</p><p>I get the message. I'm responsible for over 100,000 people's computing environment, and Mozilla could give two shits about me. That's fine.</p><p>The punchline is, Google will be finished porting Chrome to Mac and Linux soon. Then they'll provide enterprise manageability, as they did for other tools. Then, people like me who manage lots and lots of workstations will look at switching to have one, common, managed browser on 3 platforms. That's 100k people who'll go home and install Chrome and tell their friends how great it is. (Just like those home users who brought FF to work, except much faster, since there's no restrictive IT @ home)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I said " in a sane way " .Let 's say you have a bunch of WebDevs who love using some popular extensions , and you 'd like to provide them with a fully prepped workstation every time a box is built .
( I have an SLA that calls for our users to have a fully functional new PC ready to go within 40 minutes of unboxing , and we unbox about 500 PCs/week .
) Too bad -- unless you have a crew of smart masochist admins who spend a few hours/days packaging up a solution .
( We can do this in minutes for 95 \ % of Windows , Linux and even Mac apps via an API or consistent install mechanism ) One exception : if you get lucky , Ubuntu has 20 people who package a few select extensions.Or lets say you have a global distributed network linked by MPLS or Frame Relay with limited bandwidth .
You have a population of Firefox users who run with admin rights ( really bad practice on any platform btw ) , and would like to setup mirror servers for the Firefox update mechanism .
Too bad -- you ca n't do that either , unless you hack each update and each client as well.Or lets say you want to migrate Firefox user settings from workstation to workstation , or between VDI sessions or between linux terminal servers .
Too bad -- Mozilla creates a directory with random characters for user profile data.Or lets say you want to provision proxy settings ?
Again , random profile directory , sorry.Or maybe you want to disable auto-update , because a critical 3rd party application wo n't work with Firefox 3.5 for another month .
Again , you 're fucked , unless you jump through hoops.I get the message .
I 'm responsible for over 100,000 people 's computing environment , and Mozilla could give two shits about me .
That 's fine.The punchline is , Google will be finished porting Chrome to Mac and Linux soon .
Then they 'll provide enterprise manageability , as they did for other tools .
Then , people like me who manage lots and lots of workstations will look at switching to have one , common , managed browser on 3 platforms .
That 's 100k people who 'll go home and install Chrome and tell their friends how great it is .
( Just like those home users who brought FF to work , except much faster , since there 's no restrictive IT @ home )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I said "in a sane way".Let's say you have a bunch of WebDevs who love using some popular extensions, and you'd like to provide them with a fully prepped workstation every time a box is built.
(I have an SLA that calls for our users to have a fully functional new PC ready to go within 40 minutes of unboxing, and we unbox about 500 PCs/week.
) Too bad -- unless you have a crew of smart masochist admins who spend a few hours/days packaging up a solution.
(We can do this in minutes for 95\% of Windows, Linux and even Mac apps via an API or consistent install mechanism) One exception: if you get lucky, Ubuntu has 20 people who package a few select extensions.Or lets say you have a global distributed network linked by MPLS or Frame Relay with limited bandwidth.
You have a population of Firefox users who run with admin rights (really bad practice on any platform btw), and would like to setup mirror servers for the Firefox update mechanism.
Too bad -- you can't do that either, unless you hack each update and each client as well.Or lets say you want to migrate Firefox user settings from workstation to workstation, or between VDI sessions or between linux terminal servers.
Too bad -- Mozilla creates a directory with random characters for user profile data.Or lets say you want to provision proxy settings?
Again, random profile directory, sorry.Or maybe you want to disable auto-update, because a critical 3rd party application won't work with Firefox 3.5 for another month.
Again, you're fucked, unless you jump through hoops.I get the message.
I'm responsible for over 100,000 people's computing environment, and Mozilla could give two shits about me.
That's fine.The punchline is, Google will be finished porting Chrome to Mac and Linux soon.
Then they'll provide enterprise manageability, as they did for other tools.
Then, people like me who manage lots and lots of workstations will look at switching to have one, common, managed browser on 3 platforms.
That's 100k people who'll go home and install Chrome and tell their friends how great it is.
(Just like those home users who brought FF to work, except much faster, since there's no restrictive IT @ home)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715206</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1263146760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.optimizegoogle.com/" title="optimizegoogle.com">Optimizegoogle</a> [optimizegoogle.com]<br>NOT<br>Customizegoogle</p><p>Same code base, except customizegoogle is no longer updated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Optimizegoogle [ optimizegoogle.com ] NOTCustomizegoogleSame code base , except customizegoogle is no longer updated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Optimizegoogle [optimizegoogle.com]NOTCustomizegoogleSame code base, except customizegoogle is no longer updated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717020</id>
	<title>Re:If AdBlock works, then it'll be fine</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263118140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried <a href="http://www.privoxy.org/" title="privoxy.org">Privoxy?</a> [privoxy.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried Privoxy ?
[ privoxy.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried Privoxy?
[privoxy.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716726</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263116280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?</p></div><p>It had better not be. Mozilla would be wise to respect popular plugins, like AdBlock Plus, with their new addon framework. In fact, the API for the old framework should be maintained <i> <b>intact</b> </i> for existing addons which may not be updated. A big part of their 20\%+ share of the browser market is due to the addon scene, so it would be <b> <i>extremely</i></b>  stupid for Mozilla to aggravate their user base by pulling the rug out from under them with a new crippled addon framework.</p><p>If anyone at Google is listening (Mozilla takes their marching orders from Google): Take care not to disrupt the Firefox community. Firefox is the first browser in a decade to put serious pressure on Microsoft and Internet Explorer and Chrome is not yet a serious competitor in this market. Please, don't kick the sleeping bear by breaking backward compatibility or removing essential features from the addon frameworks in Firefox; your users will punish you if you do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox ? It had better not be .
Mozilla would be wise to respect popular plugins , like AdBlock Plus , with their new addon framework .
In fact , the API for the old framework should be maintained intact for existing addons which may not be updated .
A big part of their 20 \ % + share of the browser market is due to the addon scene , so it would be extremely stupid for Mozilla to aggravate their user base by pulling the rug out from under them with a new crippled addon framework.If anyone at Google is listening ( Mozilla takes their marching orders from Google ) : Take care not to disrupt the Firefox community .
Firefox is the first browser in a decade to put serious pressure on Microsoft and Internet Explorer and Chrome is not yet a serious competitor in this market .
Please , do n't kick the sleeping bear by breaking backward compatibility or removing essential features from the addon frameworks in Firefox ; your users will punish you if you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?It had better not be.
Mozilla would be wise to respect popular plugins, like AdBlock Plus, with their new addon framework.
In fact, the API for the old framework should be maintained  intact  for existing addons which may not be updated.
A big part of their 20\%+ share of the browser market is due to the addon scene, so it would be  extremely  stupid for Mozilla to aggravate their user base by pulling the rug out from under them with a new crippled addon framework.If anyone at Google is listening (Mozilla takes their marching orders from Google): Take care not to disrupt the Firefox community.
Firefox is the first browser in a decade to put serious pressure on Microsoft and Internet Explorer and Chrome is not yet a serious competitor in this market.
Please, don't kick the sleeping bear by breaking backward compatibility or removing essential features from the addon frameworks in Firefox; your users will punish you if you do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715272</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263147540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?"</p><p>If that happens, it's time to relentlessly savage Firefox and do everything practical from a geek perspective to reduce its adoption.<br>That would be a deliberate betrayal of the user base, because extensions are the only reason to use Firefox.</p><p>The makers of ANY software should know their users will turn on them in a heartbeat when they choose to screw up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox ?
" If that happens , it 's time to relentlessly savage Firefox and do everything practical from a geek perspective to reduce its adoption.That would be a deliberate betrayal of the user base , because extensions are the only reason to use Firefox.The makers of ANY software should know their users will turn on them in a heartbeat when they choose to screw up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?
"If that happens, it's time to relentlessly savage Firefox and do everything practical from a geek perspective to reduce its adoption.That would be a deliberate betrayal of the user base, because extensions are the only reason to use Firefox.The makers of ANY software should know their users will turn on them in a heartbeat when they choose to screw up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30721510</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla has been floundering for a long time</title>
	<author>Little\_Professor</author>
	<datestamp>1263213060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seamonkey came after Firefox, not the other way round. You're confusing it with Netscape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seamonkey came after Firefox , not the other way round .
You 're confusing it with Netscape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seamonkey came after Firefox, not the other way round.
You're confusing it with Netscape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718282</id>
	<title>You dump the Extensions, I dump Firefox</title>
	<author>Sarusa</author>
	<datestamp>1263126660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason I'm using Firefox is the because the extensions are so much better than on any other browser. AdBlock, FlashBlock, DownloadStatusbar, RefControl, NoScript. You can half-ass these on other browsers like Chrome or Opera, and I've done it, but in the end the ease and simplicity of it wins out, especially when I have to explain to other people how to do it and the first thing you do on a new machine is install a decent browser and extensions. I do not want to have to locate the profile directory and hand edit or copy things on every machine, much less have to explain to my parents how to do this.</p><p>If you cripple this to the level of Opera UserJS, which is fairly powerful but also a pain in the butt, then I have no reason not to move to Opera or Chrome.</p><p>Now if they can somehow make this transition while preserving the addon manager functionality and allowing actual browser extensions like DownloadStatusbar or TabMixPlus to work, then I'm fine with that. It's the results that count, not how it's implemented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason I 'm using Firefox is the because the extensions are so much better than on any other browser .
AdBlock , FlashBlock , DownloadStatusbar , RefControl , NoScript .
You can half-ass these on other browsers like Chrome or Opera , and I 've done it , but in the end the ease and simplicity of it wins out , especially when I have to explain to other people how to do it and the first thing you do on a new machine is install a decent browser and extensions .
I do not want to have to locate the profile directory and hand edit or copy things on every machine , much less have to explain to my parents how to do this.If you cripple this to the level of Opera UserJS , which is fairly powerful but also a pain in the butt , then I have no reason not to move to Opera or Chrome.Now if they can somehow make this transition while preserving the addon manager functionality and allowing actual browser extensions like DownloadStatusbar or TabMixPlus to work , then I 'm fine with that .
It 's the results that count , not how it 's implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason I'm using Firefox is the because the extensions are so much better than on any other browser.
AdBlock, FlashBlock, DownloadStatusbar, RefControl, NoScript.
You can half-ass these on other browsers like Chrome or Opera, and I've done it, but in the end the ease and simplicity of it wins out, especially when I have to explain to other people how to do it and the first thing you do on a new machine is install a decent browser and extensions.
I do not want to have to locate the profile directory and hand edit or copy things on every machine, much less have to explain to my parents how to do this.If you cripple this to the level of Opera UserJS, which is fairly powerful but also a pain in the butt, then I have no reason not to move to Opera or Chrome.Now if they can somehow make this transition while preserving the addon manager functionality and allowing actual browser extensions like DownloadStatusbar or TabMixPlus to work, then I'm fine with that.
It's the results that count, not how it's implemented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715634</id>
	<title>Re:Same as microsoft, gnome, etc dumb it down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263150480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is why I fucking hate the Slashdot "community."  If somebody bitches about something in Linux or some open source program, the inevitable knee-jerk reaction is "get the code and fix/add it yourself," as if programming were an everyday skill.  But Mozilla takes steps to making this ideal more commonplace and accessible, and everyone starts bitching and complaining.</p><p>Make up your minds.  Either you're elitist and exclusive or you're accessible and popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why I fucking hate the Slashdot " community .
" If somebody bitches about something in Linux or some open source program , the inevitable knee-jerk reaction is " get the code and fix/add it yourself , " as if programming were an everyday skill .
But Mozilla takes steps to making this ideal more commonplace and accessible , and everyone starts bitching and complaining.Make up your minds .
Either you 're elitist and exclusive or you 're accessible and popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why I fucking hate the Slashdot "community.
"  If somebody bitches about something in Linux or some open source program, the inevitable knee-jerk reaction is "get the code and fix/add it yourself," as if programming were an everyday skill.
But Mozilla takes steps to making this ideal more commonplace and accessible, and everyone starts bitching and complaining.Make up your minds.
Either you're elitist and exclusive or you're accessible and popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719268</id>
	<title>Extensions Most Valuable Part of Firefox</title>
	<author>brianmorrison</author>
	<datestamp>1263137280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face!  Without the very powerful extensions one can add to Firefox, it becomes just another browser without any particular reason for using it.  I'd probably use Google Chrome instead, were Firefox to lose its powerful extensions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face !
Without the very powerful extensions one can add to Firefox , it becomes just another browser without any particular reason for using it .
I 'd probably use Google Chrome instead , were Firefox to lose its powerful extensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face!
Without the very powerful extensions one can add to Firefox, it becomes just another browser without any particular reason for using it.
I'd probably use Google Chrome instead, were Firefox to lose its powerful extensions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718476</id>
	<title>browser agnostic extensions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263128100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>would like that very much. also it would bring a whole new wind to the browser market because many people (like myself) depend on specific extensions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>would like that very much .
also it would bring a whole new wind to the browser market because many people ( like myself ) depend on specific extensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would like that very much.
also it would bring a whole new wind to the browser market because many people (like myself) depend on specific extensions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</id>
	<title>No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263145200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Right now, it looks like AdBlock, Flashblock, CustomizeGoogle, and my own AdRater couldn't be implemented under JetPack.  The <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Jetpack/" title="mozilla.org">Jetpack API documentation</a> [mozilla.org] has a section <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Jetpack/Content" title="mozilla.org">"Content - Methods for interacting with web pages.</a> [mozilla.org] That's the mechanism anything that deals with ads needs.  That leads to <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Jetpack/Content/Page\_modifications" title="mozilla.org">"Page modifications"</a> [mozilla.org], which leads to <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Jetpack/Content/Page\_modifications" title="mozilla.org">This documentation is under development.  Please see the page modifications API proposal for now."</a> [mozilla.org]
</p><p>
That leads to <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Jetpack/JEP/17" title="mozilla.org">Jetpack Extension Proposal #17 - Page Mods</a> [mozilla.org], which discusses how to implement Greasemonkey-like functionality using Jetpack.  Current status is "Implementing (since May 27, 2009)".
</p><p>
So the functionality needed for AdBlock, etc. is vaporware.  It's not even clear that, if implemented, the proposed mechanism would support AdBlock.  The author of Adblock Plus wrote last month <a href="http://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-roadmap" title="adblockplus.org">"Jetpack has to support Adblock Plus, not the other way around. As it is now, Jetpack isn't suitable for complicated extensions."</a> [adblockplus.org]
</p><p>
It's significant that Mozilla gave priority to implementing "themes" and such, which are needed for vendor-branded browsers, while putting off implementation of user-oriented features like ad blocking.  Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , it looks like AdBlock , Flashblock , CustomizeGoogle , and my own AdRater could n't be implemented under JetPack .
The Jetpack API documentation [ mozilla.org ] has a section " Content - Methods for interacting with web pages .
[ mozilla.org ] That 's the mechanism anything that deals with ads needs .
That leads to " Page modifications " [ mozilla.org ] , which leads to This documentation is under development .
Please see the page modifications API proposal for now .
" [ mozilla.org ] That leads to Jetpack Extension Proposal # 17 - Page Mods [ mozilla.org ] , which discusses how to implement Greasemonkey-like functionality using Jetpack .
Current status is " Implementing ( since May 27 , 2009 ) " .
So the functionality needed for AdBlock , etc .
is vaporware .
It 's not even clear that , if implemented , the proposed mechanism would support AdBlock .
The author of Adblock Plus wrote last month " Jetpack has to support Adblock Plus , not the other way around .
As it is now , Jetpack is n't suitable for complicated extensions .
" [ adblockplus.org ] It 's significant that Mozilla gave priority to implementing " themes " and such , which are needed for vendor-branded browsers , while putting off implementation of user-oriented features like ad blocking .
Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Right now, it looks like AdBlock, Flashblock, CustomizeGoogle, and my own AdRater couldn't be implemented under JetPack.
The Jetpack API documentation [mozilla.org] has a section "Content - Methods for interacting with web pages.
[mozilla.org] That's the mechanism anything that deals with ads needs.
That leads to "Page modifications" [mozilla.org], which leads to This documentation is under development.
Please see the page modifications API proposal for now.
" [mozilla.org]

That leads to Jetpack Extension Proposal #17 - Page Mods [mozilla.org], which discusses how to implement Greasemonkey-like functionality using Jetpack.
Current status is "Implementing (since May 27, 2009)".
So the functionality needed for AdBlock, etc.
is vaporware.
It's not even clear that, if implemented, the proposed mechanism would support AdBlock.
The author of Adblock Plus wrote last month "Jetpack has to support Adblock Plus, not the other way around.
As it is now, Jetpack isn't suitable for complicated extensions.
" [adblockplus.org]

It's significant that Mozilla gave priority to implementing "themes" and such, which are needed for vendor-branded browsers, while putting off implementation of user-oriented features like ad blocking.
Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715410</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263148740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it is, because when they announced the Jetpack stuff, they also told us all that standard extensions were going away and we'd all have to adapt to the Jetpack API.</p><p>Wait a second, they haven't done that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is , because when they announced the Jetpack stuff , they also told us all that standard extensions were going away and we 'd all have to adapt to the Jetpack API.Wait a second , they have n't done that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is, because when they announced the Jetpack stuff, they also told us all that standard extensions were going away and we'd all have to adapt to the Jetpack API.Wait a second, they haven't done that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715704</id>
	<title>for me firefox has been going bad a long time</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1263151020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me , personally, virtually every change since FF2.0 has been for the worse; the gui has gotten harder to use, simple things i need are hidden, extensions are constantly breaking....<br>What has surprised me is that a group of devs hasn't forked to keep FF2 and all that was great in it, and try to add things that are really neat: how about a powerful business contacts manager, a la windows BCM, that is native in side FF<br>How about video that actually works ? (vlc has never worked well for me)</p><p>how about serious privacy (its clear 'they" are getting new tricks faster then ff can stop them)</p><p>how about a decent calendar - the thunderbird type calendars suck<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....<br>instead we get all sorts of useless tinkering with the gui..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , personally , virtually every change since FF2.0 has been for the worse ; the gui has gotten harder to use , simple things i need are hidden , extensions are constantly breaking....What has surprised me is that a group of devs has n't forked to keep FF2 and all that was great in it , and try to add things that are really neat : how about a powerful business contacts manager , a la windows BCM , that is native in side FFHow about video that actually works ?
( vlc has never worked well for me ) how about serious privacy ( its clear 'they " are getting new tricks faster then ff can stop them ) how about a decent calendar - the thunderbird type calendars suck .....instead we get all sorts of useless tinkering with the gui. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me , personally, virtually every change since FF2.0 has been for the worse; the gui has gotten harder to use, simple things i need are hidden, extensions are constantly breaking....What has surprised me is that a group of devs hasn't forked to keep FF2 and all that was great in it, and try to add things that are really neat: how about a powerful business contacts manager, a la windows BCM, that is native in side FFHow about video that actually works ?
(vlc has never worked well for me)how about serious privacy (its clear 'they" are getting new tricks faster then ff can stop them)how about a decent calendar - the thunderbird type calendars suck .....instead we get all sorts of useless tinkering with the gui..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716054</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1263153840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that we think alike, regarding extensions.  I love all the functionality, and the unique blend of customizations.  But, face it.  IT TAKES MEMORY AND CAUSES A BIG HIT ON PERFORMANCE!!  In my Windows VM, I allocate 1 gig of memory, and Firefox takes HALF of that memory!  In the Linux host machine, I have only a couple addons enabled, and I'm still using 251,000 k of memory.  I mean, like, HOLEE SHITZ MAN!!</p><p>Yes, it's time for Firefox to do something different.  Some of those most essential addons should be built into the browser, in a manner that they don't require all that memory, and don't impact performance.</p><p>I drove Midori around for awhile today.  The difference is like night and day - the same page that Firefox takes a second or two to load, Midori just snaps it into place.  Memory footprint?  24.3 MB.  Simply awesome.  Even videos load and play faster.  Yeah, I know - really, I know - I don't gain any bandwidth with a different browser, so the videos at Youtube can't really load any faster.  But, test it for yourself.</p><p>Midori can be found at twotoasts.de  Oh yeah - Midori also passes all the acid tests, with perfect scores, since about two versions back.  Try it out, just to fully appreciate what a dog Firefox is with all your addons installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that we think alike , regarding extensions .
I love all the functionality , and the unique blend of customizations .
But , face it .
IT TAKES MEMORY AND CAUSES A BIG HIT ON PERFORMANCE ! !
In my Windows VM , I allocate 1 gig of memory , and Firefox takes HALF of that memory !
In the Linux host machine , I have only a couple addons enabled , and I 'm still using 251,000 k of memory .
I mean , like , HOLEE SHITZ MAN !
! Yes , it 's time for Firefox to do something different .
Some of those most essential addons should be built into the browser , in a manner that they do n't require all that memory , and do n't impact performance.I drove Midori around for awhile today .
The difference is like night and day - the same page that Firefox takes a second or two to load , Midori just snaps it into place .
Memory footprint ?
24.3 MB .
Simply awesome .
Even videos load and play faster .
Yeah , I know - really , I know - I do n't gain any bandwidth with a different browser , so the videos at Youtube ca n't really load any faster .
But , test it for yourself.Midori can be found at twotoasts.de Oh yeah - Midori also passes all the acid tests , with perfect scores , since about two versions back .
Try it out , just to fully appreciate what a dog Firefox is with all your addons installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that we think alike, regarding extensions.
I love all the functionality, and the unique blend of customizations.
But, face it.
IT TAKES MEMORY AND CAUSES A BIG HIT ON PERFORMANCE!!
In my Windows VM, I allocate 1 gig of memory, and Firefox takes HALF of that memory!
In the Linux host machine, I have only a couple addons enabled, and I'm still using 251,000 k of memory.
I mean, like, HOLEE SHITZ MAN!
!Yes, it's time for Firefox to do something different.
Some of those most essential addons should be built into the browser, in a manner that they don't require all that memory, and don't impact performance.I drove Midori around for awhile today.
The difference is like night and day - the same page that Firefox takes a second or two to load, Midori just snaps it into place.
Memory footprint?
24.3 MB.
Simply awesome.
Even videos load and play faster.
Yeah, I know - really, I know - I don't gain any bandwidth with a different browser, so the videos at Youtube can't really load any faster.
But, test it for yourself.Midori can be found at twotoasts.de  Oh yeah - Midori also passes all the acid tests, with perfect scores, since about two versions back.
Try it out, just to fully appreciate what a dog Firefox is with all your addons installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715662</id>
	<title>Re:Can be done right...</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1263150780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In a way, I think Chrome proves that users really don't care that much about the UI looking and feeling "native", but care much more about it being themable.</p></div></blockquote><p>Until you try to penetrate the Mac user market where "looks and behaves like a native app as much as possible" is considered a very important feature. This is one of the things that make Chrome/OS X unattractive for me. At least they included proper menus (although not including a traditional menu bar on OS X is pure idiocy so it's not surprising they did).<br>
<br>
For an example of how important integration is, I think that Thunderbird 3 isn't nearly as good as its predecessor but I still keep it around for one reason: It implements scrolling the same was as every Cocoa app does (Thunderbird 2 didn't process scrolling if it didn't have focus). For that I'm willing to tolerate its insipid habit of starting up full-screen and its occasional infinite "processing this folder".<br>
<br>
One of the things I really, really like about switching to OS X is that it got me away from the nonsense of every app looking and feeling completely different. I don't care whether my app uses Java or was written by Google, I want it to behave exactly like every other app. When I use a new app I want to do so with the absolute minimum of relearning possible. Make me learn the things your app does that others don't; don't make me learn your exciting new way of reading the window title or locating the tools menu or how to tell apart the buttons and the window decoration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a way , I think Chrome proves that users really do n't care that much about the UI looking and feeling " native " , but care much more about it being themable.Until you try to penetrate the Mac user market where " looks and behaves like a native app as much as possible " is considered a very important feature .
This is one of the things that make Chrome/OS X unattractive for me .
At least they included proper menus ( although not including a traditional menu bar on OS X is pure idiocy so it 's not surprising they did ) .
For an example of how important integration is , I think that Thunderbird 3 is n't nearly as good as its predecessor but I still keep it around for one reason : It implements scrolling the same was as every Cocoa app does ( Thunderbird 2 did n't process scrolling if it did n't have focus ) .
For that I 'm willing to tolerate its insipid habit of starting up full-screen and its occasional infinite " processing this folder " .
One of the things I really , really like about switching to OS X is that it got me away from the nonsense of every app looking and feeling completely different .
I do n't care whether my app uses Java or was written by Google , I want it to behave exactly like every other app .
When I use a new app I want to do so with the absolute minimum of relearning possible .
Make me learn the things your app does that others do n't ; do n't make me learn your exciting new way of reading the window title or locating the tools menu or how to tell apart the buttons and the window decoration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a way, I think Chrome proves that users really don't care that much about the UI looking and feeling "native", but care much more about it being themable.Until you try to penetrate the Mac user market where "looks and behaves like a native app as much as possible" is considered a very important feature.
This is one of the things that make Chrome/OS X unattractive for me.
At least they included proper menus (although not including a traditional menu bar on OS X is pure idiocy so it's not surprising they did).
For an example of how important integration is, I think that Thunderbird 3 isn't nearly as good as its predecessor but I still keep it around for one reason: It implements scrolling the same was as every Cocoa app does (Thunderbird 2 didn't process scrolling if it didn't have focus).
For that I'm willing to tolerate its insipid habit of starting up full-screen and its occasional infinite "processing this folder".
One of the things I really, really like about switching to OS X is that it got me away from the nonsense of every app looking and feeling completely different.
I don't care whether my app uses Java or was written by Google, I want it to behave exactly like every other app.
When I use a new app I want to do so with the absolute minimum of relearning possible.
Make me learn the things your app does that others don't; don't make me learn your exciting new way of reading the window title or locating the tools menu or how to tell apart the buttons and the window decoration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715364</id>
	<title>Definitely a bad move...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263148380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I must say that for the last few months I've been using daily builds of Chromium for linux and the beta for Windows simply so that I could use extensions.  However, most of the extensions are just horribly written or simply do not work or work as well as their FF counterparts.  Not to mention that I believe that some functionality provided by FF extensions as they are now could NEVER be implemented in a simpler extension framework if it's anything like Chrome's.  (The only Chromium extension that is even close to it's FF counterpart's functionality are the session managers, which I use "fresh start" ATM as most of the others(forgotten which now) were broken in various ways, as are some of the ad "block" extensions, none of which work as well as Ad Block+ and noscript anyways.)</p><p>As far as FF extensions, I primarily install Ad Block+, noscript, session manager, tabmixplus, and greasemonkey which NOTHING similar exists for Chrome.  The Chrome adblocks merely hid display elements, and so far I've turned up nothing like noscript for it.  I suppose that you could argue that greasemonkey is sort of builtin already as the default is js scripting, but I must admit that I really don't use much greasemonkey functionality any longer and have pretty well forgotten all of it's nifty features.</p><p>Speed:<br>Seemed like last Fall that chrome(beta)/chromium felt faster than FF AND had some useful extensions.however I've found performance problems popping up with the Windows beta of Chrome while the linux version daily builds still seems as quick as ever with approximately the same extension set and environment(open tabs, etc.).  In fact performance seems to have degraded enough that I'm actively considering going to daily builds for the Windows version if not back to FF primarily as Chrome beta is significantly slower than FF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I must say that for the last few months I 've been using daily builds of Chromium for linux and the beta for Windows simply so that I could use extensions .
However , most of the extensions are just horribly written or simply do not work or work as well as their FF counterparts .
Not to mention that I believe that some functionality provided by FF extensions as they are now could NEVER be implemented in a simpler extension framework if it 's anything like Chrome 's .
( The only Chromium extension that is even close to it 's FF counterpart 's functionality are the session managers , which I use " fresh start " ATM as most of the others ( forgotten which now ) were broken in various ways , as are some of the ad " block " extensions , none of which work as well as Ad Block + and noscript anyways .
) As far as FF extensions , I primarily install Ad Block + , noscript , session manager , tabmixplus , and greasemonkey which NOTHING similar exists for Chrome .
The Chrome adblocks merely hid display elements , and so far I 've turned up nothing like noscript for it .
I suppose that you could argue that greasemonkey is sort of builtin already as the default is js scripting , but I must admit that I really do n't use much greasemonkey functionality any longer and have pretty well forgotten all of it 's nifty features.Speed : Seemed like last Fall that chrome ( beta ) /chromium felt faster than FF AND had some useful extensions.however I 've found performance problems popping up with the Windows beta of Chrome while the linux version daily builds still seems as quick as ever with approximately the same extension set and environment ( open tabs , etc. ) .
In fact performance seems to have degraded enough that I 'm actively considering going to daily builds for the Windows version if not back to FF primarily as Chrome beta is significantly slower than FF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I must say that for the last few months I've been using daily builds of Chromium for linux and the beta for Windows simply so that I could use extensions.
However, most of the extensions are just horribly written or simply do not work or work as well as their FF counterparts.
Not to mention that I believe that some functionality provided by FF extensions as they are now could NEVER be implemented in a simpler extension framework if it's anything like Chrome's.
(The only Chromium extension that is even close to it's FF counterpart's functionality are the session managers, which I use "fresh start" ATM as most of the others(forgotten which now) were broken in various ways, as are some of the ad "block" extensions, none of which work as well as Ad Block+ and noscript anyways.
)As far as FF extensions, I primarily install Ad Block+, noscript, session manager, tabmixplus, and greasemonkey which NOTHING similar exists for Chrome.
The Chrome adblocks merely hid display elements, and so far I've turned up nothing like noscript for it.
I suppose that you could argue that greasemonkey is sort of builtin already as the default is js scripting, but I must admit that I really don't use much greasemonkey functionality any longer and have pretty well forgotten all of it's nifty features.Speed:Seemed like last Fall that chrome(beta)/chromium felt faster than FF AND had some useful extensions.however I've found performance problems popping up with the Windows beta of Chrome while the linux version daily builds still seems as quick as ever with approximately the same extension set and environment(open tabs, etc.).
In fact performance seems to have degraded enough that I'm actively considering going to daily builds for the Windows version if not back to FF primarily as Chrome beta is significantly slower than FF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716452</id>
	<title>I will not upgrade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263114120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they do get rid of all the current extensions for the feature releases of Firefox I will not upgrade..... I will be 3.5.7 for life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do get rid of all the current extensions for the feature releases of Firefox I will not upgrade..... I will be 3.5.7 for life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they do get rid of all the current extensions for the feature releases of Firefox I will not upgrade..... I will be 3.5.7 for life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715162</id>
	<title>Re:Same as microsoft, gnome, etc dumb it down</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1263146280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>OMG programming is HARD! We need to reduce features and make it simpler so any moron can do it!!!</i> <br> <br>

Pretty much true.  You seem to have actually spit out a true statement in an attempt to make a sarcastic rant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG programming is HARD !
We need to reduce features and make it simpler so any moron can do it ! ! !
Pretty much true .
You seem to have actually spit out a true statement in an attempt to make a sarcastic rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG programming is HARD!
We need to reduce features and make it simpler so any moron can do it!!!
Pretty much true.
You seem to have actually spit out a true statement in an attempt to make a sarcastic rant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716226</id>
	<title>Re:Is that you Steve?</title>
	<author>StarsAreAlsoFire</author>
	<datestamp>1263155820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks, that was the one thing that actually gave me any concern at all.<br><br>I can tell you now: if Firefox breaks Firebug, 99\% of the worlds web developers will never upgrade past the last version it worked with.<br><br>Writing extensions to FF is already one of the most absurd instances of UI development I've ever had the misery to witness. Short of going to VB script, it's hard to imagine anything that could make it worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , that was the one thing that actually gave me any concern at all.I can tell you now : if Firefox breaks Firebug , 99 \ % of the worlds web developers will never upgrade past the last version it worked with.Writing extensions to FF is already one of the most absurd instances of UI development I 've ever had the misery to witness .
Short of going to VB script , it 's hard to imagine anything that could make it worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, that was the one thing that actually gave me any concern at all.I can tell you now: if Firefox breaks Firebug, 99\% of the worlds web developers will never upgrade past the last version it worked with.Writing extensions to FF is already one of the most absurd instances of UI development I've ever had the misery to witness.
Short of going to VB script, it's hard to imagine anything that could make it worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30724632</id>
	<title>mission acomplished</title>
	<author>doti</author>
	<datestamp>1263232740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks, Mozilla!</p><p>You made a great browser that I used from version 0.3 (then named Phoenix, IIRC) to 3.5. More than that, you acomplished your mission to make the web a better place. Now we have a handful of good mostly-standards-compliant browsers to choose from. I'm leaving you for Chromium for now, but you'll always have a place in my heart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , Mozilla ! You made a great browser that I used from version 0.3 ( then named Phoenix , IIRC ) to 3.5 .
More than that , you acomplished your mission to make the web a better place .
Now we have a handful of good mostly-standards-compliant browsers to choose from .
I 'm leaving you for Chromium for now , but you 'll always have a place in my heart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, Mozilla!You made a great browser that I used from version 0.3 (then named Phoenix, IIRC) to 3.5.
More than that, you acomplished your mission to make the web a better place.
Now we have a handful of good mostly-standards-compliant browsers to choose from.
I'm leaving you for Chromium for now, but you'll always have a place in my heart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30720670</id>
	<title>Speaking as a Jetpack Ambassador...</title>
	<author>FreakCERS</author>
	<datestamp>1263242340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can tell you that as far as I know, there are no plans to scrap the current extension system. The plan is to provide an easier way of developing extensions, that will be powerful enough for the vast majority of extensions, and easy enough to allow a far greater amount of people to take part in the process.
<br> <br>
I believe much of this confusion could be alleviated if everyone concerned watched this video <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/8372101" title="vimeo.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.vimeo.com/8372101</a> [vimeo.com] (a talk on the topic by Aza Raskin, head of UX at Mozilla) - and for those who can't be bothered with it all, you can skip to 35:10 or read this rough transcript:
<br> <br>
"The rough plan for where we're going with this, is that by Firefox 3.7, this will be baked into Firefox in some degree, so that's end of Q2. [snip] And by Firefox 4 we're really going to be pushing for making Jetpack or Jetpack enabled extensions the premier way of writing extensions, and while I don't think we're ever going to phase out the old model entirely [...] we're going to be pushing that almost everything happens inside of this." -- Aza Raskin
<br> <br>
-- cers / Christian Sonne</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you that as far as I know , there are no plans to scrap the current extension system .
The plan is to provide an easier way of developing extensions , that will be powerful enough for the vast majority of extensions , and easy enough to allow a far greater amount of people to take part in the process .
I believe much of this confusion could be alleviated if everyone concerned watched this video http : //www.vimeo.com/8372101 [ vimeo.com ] ( a talk on the topic by Aza Raskin , head of UX at Mozilla ) - and for those who ca n't be bothered with it all , you can skip to 35 : 10 or read this rough transcript : " The rough plan for where we 're going with this , is that by Firefox 3.7 , this will be baked into Firefox in some degree , so that 's end of Q2 .
[ snip ] And by Firefox 4 we 're really going to be pushing for making Jetpack or Jetpack enabled extensions the premier way of writing extensions , and while I do n't think we 're ever going to phase out the old model entirely [ ... ] we 're going to be pushing that almost everything happens inside of this .
" -- Aza Raskin -- cers / Christian Sonne</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you that as far as I know, there are no plans to scrap the current extension system.
The plan is to provide an easier way of developing extensions, that will be powerful enough for the vast majority of extensions, and easy enough to allow a far greater amount of people to take part in the process.
I believe much of this confusion could be alleviated if everyone concerned watched this video http://www.vimeo.com/8372101 [vimeo.com] (a talk on the topic by Aza Raskin, head of UX at Mozilla) - and for those who can't be bothered with it all, you can skip to 35:10 or read this rough transcript:
 
"The rough plan for where we're going with this, is that by Firefox 3.7, this will be baked into Firefox in some degree, so that's end of Q2.
[snip] And by Firefox 4 we're really going to be pushing for making Jetpack or Jetpack enabled extensions the premier way of writing extensions, and while I don't think we're ever going to phase out the old model entirely [...] we're going to be pushing that almost everything happens inside of this.
" -- Aza Raskin
 
-- cers / Christian Sonne</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718290</id>
	<title>Re:Mozzidiots</title>
	<author>rico13</author>
	<datestamp>1263126720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hell yeah
you said it
i totally agree with you</htmltext>
<tokenext>hell yeah you said it i totally agree with you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hell yeah
you said it
i totally agree with you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715280</id>
	<title>Is referencing dumb or smart?  Is it really code?</title>
	<author>j-stroy</author>
	<datestamp>1263147600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I checked out the featured <a href="https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/" title="mozillalabs.com">"jetpack image editor"</a> [mozillalabs.com] and how EASY it is to write such a complicated feature in <a href="http://azarask.in/jetpack/editor/pixlr.js" title="azarask.in">JUST 14 lines.</a> [azarask.in] <br> <br>

Gluing in some one elses code is not coding:  $.get("http://developer.pixlr.com/\_script/pixlr\_minified.js", function(js){<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... } )<br> <br>

In fact, how many levels of derivation could a popular feature possibly use, my plugin references yours, references a library, that includes another external, etc.. all because some kiddies liked another kiddies script ad infinitum.<br> <br>

How many dependencies on servers having uptime, and being secure?  Imagine a world of plug-ins that rerference each other so heavily that a cat on a certain keyboard could crash everyones extensions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked out the featured " jetpack image editor " [ mozillalabs.com ] and how EASY it is to write such a complicated feature in JUST 14 lines .
[ azarask.in ] Gluing in some one elses code is not coding : $ .get ( " http : //developer.pixlr.com/ \ _script/pixlr \ _minified.js " , function ( js ) { ... } ) In fact , how many levels of derivation could a popular feature possibly use , my plugin references yours , references a library , that includes another external , etc.. all because some kiddies liked another kiddies script ad infinitum .
How many dependencies on servers having uptime , and being secure ?
Imagine a world of plug-ins that rerference each other so heavily that a cat on a certain keyboard could crash everyones extensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked out the featured "jetpack image editor" [mozillalabs.com] and how EASY it is to write such a complicated feature in JUST 14 lines.
[azarask.in]  

Gluing in some one elses code is not coding:  $.get("http://developer.pixlr.com/\_script/pixlr\_minified.js", function(js){ ... } ) 

In fact, how many levels of derivation could a popular feature possibly use, my plugin references yours, references a library, that includes another external, etc.. all because some kiddies liked another kiddies script ad infinitum.
How many dependencies on servers having uptime, and being secure?
Imagine a world of plug-ins that rerference each other so heavily that a cat on a certain keyboard could crash everyones extensions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30721242</id>
	<title>Jetpack? Seriously?</title>
	<author>IRoll11!s</author>
	<datestamp>1263209340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've written 4 popular greasemonkey scripts and two extremely targeted FF extensions for small web communities.

Jetpack always struck me as being promoted by people who had an oversized view of their own importance.

Check out how active Jetpack discussion is on the userscripts.org forum:

<a href="http://userscripts.org/forums" title="userscripts.org" rel="nofollow">http://userscripts.org/forums</a> [userscripts.org]

Yeah.  Come back when you have something interesting that works, until then leave me alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've written 4 popular greasemonkey scripts and two extremely targeted FF extensions for small web communities .
Jetpack always struck me as being promoted by people who had an oversized view of their own importance .
Check out how active Jetpack discussion is on the userscripts.org forum : http : //userscripts.org/forums [ userscripts.org ] Yeah .
Come back when you have something interesting that works , until then leave me alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've written 4 popular greasemonkey scripts and two extremely targeted FF extensions for small web communities.
Jetpack always struck me as being promoted by people who had an oversized view of their own importance.
Check out how active Jetpack discussion is on the userscripts.org forum:

http://userscripts.org/forums [userscripts.org]

Yeah.
Come back when you have something interesting that works, until then leave me alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715024</id>
	<title>Is that you Steve?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263145020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the linked Firebug blog, paragraph 2 states, in its entirety:<blockquote><div><p>"I don&rsquo;t think these changes will have a big impact on Firebug.  Firefox will continue to support extensions while the jetpack technology matures.  We can adapt as we go along."</p></div></blockquote><p>I think that if you want to spread FUD you should make sure that you don't link to a web page that makes this statement in the second paragraph Mr. Billmer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the linked Firebug blog , paragraph 2 states , in its entirety : " I don    t think these changes will have a big impact on Firebug .
Firefox will continue to support extensions while the jetpack technology matures .
We can adapt as we go along .
" I think that if you want to spread FUD you should make sure that you do n't link to a web page that makes this statement in the second paragraph Mr. Billmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the linked Firebug blog, paragraph 2 states, in its entirety:"I don’t think these changes will have a big impact on Firebug.
Firefox will continue to support extensions while the jetpack technology matures.
We can adapt as we go along.
"I think that if you want to spread FUD you should make sure that you don't link to a web page that makes this statement in the second paragraph Mr. Billmer.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716212</id>
	<title>Mozzidiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263155760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are stupid morons, Firefox is only popular because of the extensions it has accumalted and third party developers have worked on improving, its really only been since last year that its come into being the best, fuck with that, and Mozilla can fuck off back to insignificant existence.</p><p>Without the powerful extensibility Firefox has to allow others to sort out and fix the defaulty shit provided, it really has nothing to offer. And looking at future Firefox jetpack (more like shitpack) same with shity personas.. its just pathetic theming for retards, when what they should have done was improved Firefox ability to change full theme styles without a fucking RESTART! As for the new Firefox 4.0 gui and layout retardation.. I think it says one thing.. Mozilla are infested with fucking retards. Where are the real feature improvements!?!?? tab splitting dual screen browsing modes, and other power features.. not dumb down retard shit and removing features!  They FUCKING REMOVE features like the [element properties] dialog, what fucking morons are working at Mozilla!?!?!</p><p>The majority of extensions are the only reason I use Firefox over another browser, some of them are bare essentials, without them I wouldn't even touch shitfox:</p><p>Enabled Extensions: [81]</p><p>
    * Adblock Plus 1.1.3<br>
    * Add to Search Bar 1.8<br>
    * All-in-One Sidebar 0.7.10<br>
    * Auto Close Folder In Library 1.0<br>
    * Auto Context 1.5.0.3<br>
    * AutoAuth 1.3<br>
    * Autoclose Bookmark&amp;History Folders 0.5.6.3<br>
    * BetterCache 1.24<br>
    * BetterPrivacy 1.45<br>
    * BlockSite 0.7.1<br>
    * Bookmark Previews 0.8.0<br>
    * CacheViewer 0.6.2<br>
    * CheckPlaces 1.6.4<br>
    * Clear Form History 0.2<br>
    * Console 0.5<br>
    * Cookie Whitelist, With Buttons 1.0.3<br>
    * CookieCuller 1.4<br>
    * CookiePie 1.0.4<br>
    * CuteMenus Classic 0.7.5<br>
    * DOM Inspector 2.0.4<br>
    * Download Manager Tweak 0.9.0beta<br>
    * DownloadHelper 4.6.5<br>
    * Easy DragToGo 1.1.2.4<br>
    * Favicon Picker 3 0.5<br>
    * FfChrome 1.7<br>
    * Find Toolbar Tweaks 2.1.0<br>
    * FindList 0.8<br>
    * Firebug 1.5.0b9<br>
    * Firefox Throttle 1.1<br>
    * FireGestures 1.5.5.1<br>
    * Firesizer 1.0<br>
    * Fission 1.0.9<br>
    * FlashGot 1.2.1.09<br>
    * FlickrFox 1.3.0<br>
    * Form History Control 1.1.4<br>
    * Get File 1.3.1<br>
    * Get Mail Plus 3.2<br>
    * Glazoom (formerly known as Zoom It!) 0.4<br>
    * Greasefire 1.0.4<br>
    * Greasemonkey 0.8.20091209.4<br>
    * gui:config 0.4.4<br>
    * HttpFox 0.8.4<br>
    * Image Zoom 0.4.2<br>
    * IMDb Preview 0.6<br>
    * InspectorWidget 2.11.20090429<br>
    * Intelligent Middle Clickums 0.0.1<br>
    * JSView 2.0.5<br>
    * keyconfig 20080929<br>
    * Lazarus: Form Recovery 2.0.5<br>
    * Link And Forminfo 1.0.6<br>
    *</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are stupid morons , Firefox is only popular because of the extensions it has accumalted and third party developers have worked on improving , its really only been since last year that its come into being the best , fuck with that , and Mozilla can fuck off back to insignificant existence.Without the powerful extensibility Firefox has to allow others to sort out and fix the defaulty shit provided , it really has nothing to offer .
And looking at future Firefox jetpack ( more like shitpack ) same with shity personas.. its just pathetic theming for retards , when what they should have done was improved Firefox ability to change full theme styles without a fucking RESTART !
As for the new Firefox 4.0 gui and layout retardation.. I think it says one thing.. Mozilla are infested with fucking retards .
Where are the real feature improvements ! ? ! ? ?
tab splitting dual screen browsing modes , and other power features.. not dumb down retard shit and removing features !
They FUCKING REMOVE features like the [ element properties ] dialog , what fucking morons are working at Mozilla ! ? ! ?
! The majority of extensions are the only reason I use Firefox over another browser , some of them are bare essentials , without them I would n't even touch shitfox : Enabled Extensions : [ 81 ] * Adblock Plus 1.1.3 * Add to Search Bar 1.8 * All-in-One Sidebar 0.7.10 * Auto Close Folder In Library 1.0 * Auto Context 1.5.0.3 * AutoAuth 1.3 * Autoclose Bookmark&amp;History Folders 0.5.6.3 * BetterCache 1.24 * BetterPrivacy 1.45 * BlockSite 0.7.1 * Bookmark Previews 0.8.0 * CacheViewer 0.6.2 * CheckPlaces 1.6.4 * Clear Form History 0.2 * Console 0.5 * Cookie Whitelist , With Buttons 1.0.3 * CookieCuller 1.4 * CookiePie 1.0.4 * CuteMenus Classic 0.7.5 * DOM Inspector 2.0.4 * Download Manager Tweak 0.9.0beta * DownloadHelper 4.6.5 * Easy DragToGo 1.1.2.4 * Favicon Picker 3 0.5 * FfChrome 1.7 * Find Toolbar Tweaks 2.1.0 * FindList 0.8 * Firebug 1.5.0b9 * Firefox Throttle 1.1 * FireGestures 1.5.5.1 * Firesizer 1.0 * Fission 1.0.9 * FlashGot 1.2.1.09 * FlickrFox 1.3.0 * Form History Control 1.1.4 * Get File 1.3.1 * Get Mail Plus 3.2 * Glazoom ( formerly known as Zoom It !
) 0.4 * Greasefire 1.0.4 * Greasemonkey 0.8.20091209.4 * gui : config 0.4.4 * HttpFox 0.8.4 * Image Zoom 0.4.2 * IMDb Preview 0.6 * InspectorWidget 2.11.20090429 * Intelligent Middle Clickums 0.0.1 * JSView 2.0.5 * keyconfig 20080929 * Lazarus : Form Recovery 2.0.5 * Link And Forminfo 1.0.6 *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are stupid morons, Firefox is only popular because of the extensions it has accumalted and third party developers have worked on improving, its really only been since last year that its come into being the best, fuck with that, and Mozilla can fuck off back to insignificant existence.Without the powerful extensibility Firefox has to allow others to sort out and fix the defaulty shit provided, it really has nothing to offer.
And looking at future Firefox jetpack (more like shitpack) same with shity personas.. its just pathetic theming for retards, when what they should have done was improved Firefox ability to change full theme styles without a fucking RESTART!
As for the new Firefox 4.0 gui and layout retardation.. I think it says one thing.. Mozilla are infested with fucking retards.
Where are the real feature improvements!?!??
tab splitting dual screen browsing modes, and other power features.. not dumb down retard shit and removing features!
They FUCKING REMOVE features like the [element properties] dialog, what fucking morons are working at Mozilla!?!?
!The majority of extensions are the only reason I use Firefox over another browser, some of them are bare essentials, without them I wouldn't even touch shitfox:Enabled Extensions: [81]
    * Adblock Plus 1.1.3
    * Add to Search Bar 1.8
    * All-in-One Sidebar 0.7.10
    * Auto Close Folder In Library 1.0
    * Auto Context 1.5.0.3
    * AutoAuth 1.3
    * Autoclose Bookmark&amp;History Folders 0.5.6.3
    * BetterCache 1.24
    * BetterPrivacy 1.45
    * BlockSite 0.7.1
    * Bookmark Previews 0.8.0
    * CacheViewer 0.6.2
    * CheckPlaces 1.6.4
    * Clear Form History 0.2
    * Console 0.5
    * Cookie Whitelist, With Buttons 1.0.3
    * CookieCuller 1.4
    * CookiePie 1.0.4
    * CuteMenus Classic 0.7.5
    * DOM Inspector 2.0.4
    * Download Manager Tweak 0.9.0beta
    * DownloadHelper 4.6.5
    * Easy DragToGo 1.1.2.4
    * Favicon Picker 3 0.5
    * FfChrome 1.7
    * Find Toolbar Tweaks 2.1.0
    * FindList 0.8
    * Firebug 1.5.0b9
    * Firefox Throttle 1.1
    * FireGestures 1.5.5.1
    * Firesizer 1.0
    * Fission 1.0.9
    * FlashGot 1.2.1.09
    * FlickrFox 1.3.0
    * Form History Control 1.1.4
    * Get File 1.3.1
    * Get Mail Plus 3.2
    * Glazoom (formerly known as Zoom It!
) 0.4
    * Greasefire 1.0.4
    * Greasemonkey 0.8.20091209.4
    * gui:config 0.4.4
    * HttpFox 0.8.4
    * Image Zoom 0.4.2
    * IMDb Preview 0.6
    * InspectorWidget 2.11.20090429
    * Intelligent Middle Clickums 0.0.1
    * JSView 2.0.5
    * keyconfig 20080929
    * Lazarus: Form Recovery 2.0.5
    * Link And Forminfo 1.0.6
    *</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715226</id>
	<title>Ditching extensions sounds good to me...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1263147060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never liked the Firefox design, and I have never trusted the XPI installer mechanism. Switching to an extension mechanism that doesn't open up the whole performance and security bag of worms the Firefox extensions do would be worth trying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never liked the Firefox design , and I have never trusted the XPI installer mechanism .
Switching to an extension mechanism that does n't open up the whole performance and security bag of worms the Firefox extensions do would be worth trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never liked the Firefox design, and I have never trusted the XPI installer mechanism.
Switching to an extension mechanism that doesn't open up the whole performance and security bag of worms the Firefox extensions do would be worth trying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30721128</id>
	<title>Bye bye Extensions... bye bye Firefox</title>
	<author>Ponyegg</author>
	<datestamp>1263207000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Out of all the extensions I use httpFox is by far the one I use the most and integral in my job. Losing this would single handedly make my job 10 times more complex as we'd have to use inefficient mechanisms to visualise what the browser is calling. As has been said already there are much bigger bugs and issues for them to fix before going after this one. Or is this Google working behind the scenes trying to push FF in a direction where users simpler giveup and move to Chrome?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of all the extensions I use httpFox is by far the one I use the most and integral in my job .
Losing this would single handedly make my job 10 times more complex as we 'd have to use inefficient mechanisms to visualise what the browser is calling .
As has been said already there are much bigger bugs and issues for them to fix before going after this one .
Or is this Google working behind the scenes trying to push FF in a direction where users simpler giveup and move to Chrome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of all the extensions I use httpFox is by far the one I use the most and integral in my job.
Losing this would single handedly make my job 10 times more complex as we'd have to use inefficient mechanisms to visualise what the browser is calling.
As has been said already there are much bigger bugs and issues for them to fix before going after this one.
Or is this Google working behind the scenes trying to push FF in a direction where users simpler giveup and move to Chrome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714994</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263144720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summarize:<br>
<br>
Mozilla is implementing Opera's User JavaScript.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summarize : Mozilla is implementing Opera 's User JavaScript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summarize:

Mozilla is implementing Opera's User JavaScript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718914</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1263132720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in other words they are getting ready to pull a Netscape 4 and shoot themselves right in the foot? Hell the only reason i stick with Firefox is the extensions and how much more powerful they are compared to the other browsers. NoScript, ABP, ForecastFox, FEBE (A must have), Distrust, iMacros (another must have, great for scripting), these are what keeps me coming back to Firefox day in and day out. Sure XUL is a little slower than the other guys, but it allows for Firefox to be more of a framework to build on that strictly a browser, which is why there are so many projects that use Firefox as a base, like Flock and Songbird.</p><p>

if they do this I predict all those gains they have made will be flushed right down the crapper. After all, if FF just becomes another browser with a little bit of ability to bolt on some add-ons, ala Opera and Chrome, why wouldn't I just use them instead? Presto and Webkit are faster at rendering anyway. It is the huge robust extensions framework that keeps me coming back, and I'm sure I'm far from alone. With Firefox extensions are powerful enough to completely reconfigure everything from the UI on down, while still being easy enough that my 67 year old clueless dad can easily make Firefox HIS way by simply adding extensions. I don't see any other browser that has that combo of power and ease of use, and I only hope that if they do shoot themselves in the foot the Seamonkey team will continue with things the way they are. I really don't want to switch Firefox devs, don't screw up a good thing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in other words they are getting ready to pull a Netscape 4 and shoot themselves right in the foot ?
Hell the only reason i stick with Firefox is the extensions and how much more powerful they are compared to the other browsers .
NoScript , ABP , ForecastFox , FEBE ( A must have ) , Distrust , iMacros ( another must have , great for scripting ) , these are what keeps me coming back to Firefox day in and day out .
Sure XUL is a little slower than the other guys , but it allows for Firefox to be more of a framework to build on that strictly a browser , which is why there are so many projects that use Firefox as a base , like Flock and Songbird .
if they do this I predict all those gains they have made will be flushed right down the crapper .
After all , if FF just becomes another browser with a little bit of ability to bolt on some add-ons , ala Opera and Chrome , why would n't I just use them instead ?
Presto and Webkit are faster at rendering anyway .
It is the huge robust extensions framework that keeps me coming back , and I 'm sure I 'm far from alone .
With Firefox extensions are powerful enough to completely reconfigure everything from the UI on down , while still being easy enough that my 67 year old clueless dad can easily make Firefox HIS way by simply adding extensions .
I do n't see any other browser that has that combo of power and ease of use , and I only hope that if they do shoot themselves in the foot the Seamonkey team will continue with things the way they are .
I really do n't want to switch Firefox devs , do n't screw up a good thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in other words they are getting ready to pull a Netscape 4 and shoot themselves right in the foot?
Hell the only reason i stick with Firefox is the extensions and how much more powerful they are compared to the other browsers.
NoScript, ABP, ForecastFox, FEBE (A must have), Distrust, iMacros (another must have, great for scripting), these are what keeps me coming back to Firefox day in and day out.
Sure XUL is a little slower than the other guys, but it allows for Firefox to be more of a framework to build on that strictly a browser, which is why there are so many projects that use Firefox as a base, like Flock and Songbird.
if they do this I predict all those gains they have made will be flushed right down the crapper.
After all, if FF just becomes another browser with a little bit of ability to bolt on some add-ons, ala Opera and Chrome, why wouldn't I just use them instead?
Presto and Webkit are faster at rendering anyway.
It is the huge robust extensions framework that keeps me coming back, and I'm sure I'm far from alone.
With Firefox extensions are powerful enough to completely reconfigure everything from the UI on down, while still being easy enough that my 67 year old clueless dad can easily make Firefox HIS way by simply adding extensions.
I don't see any other browser that has that combo of power and ease of use, and I only hope that if they do shoot themselves in the foot the Seamonkey team will continue with things the way they are.
I really don't want to switch Firefox devs, don't screw up a good thing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263144840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree, the links seem appropriate in their respective contexts.<br>
However, TFS' question strikes me as superfluous -- FF already has lots of
extensions of questionable quality. They're simply looking to transition to
a new implementation of extensions, which hopefully will bog the browser down
less and create fewer security issues by sticking with simpler code.
Can't see how that would be "the wrong direction", frankly...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , the links seem appropriate in their respective contexts .
However , TFS ' question strikes me as superfluous -- FF already has lots of extensions of questionable quality .
They 're simply looking to transition to a new implementation of extensions , which hopefully will bog the browser down less and create fewer security issues by sticking with simpler code .
Ca n't see how that would be " the wrong direction " , frankly.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, the links seem appropriate in their respective contexts.
However, TFS' question strikes me as superfluous -- FF already has lots of
extensions of questionable quality.
They're simply looking to transition to
a new implementation of extensions, which hopefully will bog the browser down
less and create fewer security issues by sticking with simpler code.
Can't see how that would be "the wrong direction", frankly...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716450</id>
	<title>Re:Ditching extensions sounds good to me...</title>
	<author>xous</author>
	<datestamp>1263114120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded insightful? You state only opinion without supporting arguments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded insightful ?
You state only opinion without supporting arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded insightful?
You state only opinion without supporting arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717396</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>blee37</author>
	<datestamp>1263120660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that Jetpack will make it easier for developers to create apps and will also likely result in safer apps that don't fail as often.  However, this is only apparent in hindsight, now that we realize writing add-ons with HTML/CSS/JS type technologies is probably smart.  The fact is that Firefox has a significant number of extremely useful applications that might go beyond what is possible to implement with Jetpack.  My business uses some Firefox extensions that are absolutely critical to us.  I don't mind if Mozilla goes to Jetpack, but I think that they should keep support for traditional extensions.  If they get rid of extensions, they will hurt a lot of people.  Going to "Jetpack only" would make more sense if they were starting from a clean slate, but currently I think they have a responsibility to existing users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that Jetpack will make it easier for developers to create apps and will also likely result in safer apps that do n't fail as often .
However , this is only apparent in hindsight , now that we realize writing add-ons with HTML/CSS/JS type technologies is probably smart .
The fact is that Firefox has a significant number of extremely useful applications that might go beyond what is possible to implement with Jetpack .
My business uses some Firefox extensions that are absolutely critical to us .
I do n't mind if Mozilla goes to Jetpack , but I think that they should keep support for traditional extensions .
If they get rid of extensions , they will hurt a lot of people .
Going to " Jetpack only " would make more sense if they were starting from a clean slate , but currently I think they have a responsibility to existing users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that Jetpack will make it easier for developers to create apps and will also likely result in safer apps that don't fail as often.
However, this is only apparent in hindsight, now that we realize writing add-ons with HTML/CSS/JS type technologies is probably smart.
The fact is that Firefox has a significant number of extremely useful applications that might go beyond what is possible to implement with Jetpack.
My business uses some Firefox extensions that are absolutely critical to us.
I don't mind if Mozilla goes to Jetpack, but I think that they should keep support for traditional extensions.
If they get rid of extensions, they will hurt a lot of people.
Going to "Jetpack only" would make more sense if they were starting from a clean slate, but currently I think they have a responsibility to existing users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717054</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, uh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263118380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess people perceive XUL as being some strange voodoo magic, compared to it just being an other XML vocabulary.</p><ol> <li>If you are a competent web developer, you should be able to quickly pick up XUL. (not memorize, but be able to use it while having a reference sitting on your desk)</li><li>Even with Jetpack, you still have to learn Mozilla's Javascript APIs.</li></ol><p>So all Jetpack seems to be doing is duplicating existing features. If they want to make it easier to develop extensions, they should focus on making the existing system easier to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess people perceive XUL as being some strange voodoo magic , compared to it just being an other XML vocabulary .
If you are a competent web developer , you should be able to quickly pick up XUL .
( not memorize , but be able to use it while having a reference sitting on your desk ) Even with Jetpack , you still have to learn Mozilla 's Javascript APIs.So all Jetpack seems to be doing is duplicating existing features .
If they want to make it easier to develop extensions , they should focus on making the existing system easier to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess people perceive XUL as being some strange voodoo magic, compared to it just being an other XML vocabulary.
If you are a competent web developer, you should be able to quickly pick up XUL.
(not memorize, but be able to use it while having a reference sitting on your desk)Even with Jetpack, you still have to learn Mozilla's Javascript APIs.So all Jetpack seems to be doing is duplicating existing features.
If they want to make it easier to develop extensions, they should focus on making the existing system easier to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716454</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>idontusenumbers</author>
	<datestamp>1263114120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>JetPack will drastically lower the learning curve which will result it even more extensions of even more questionable quality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>JetPack will drastically lower the learning curve which will result it even more extensions of even more questionable quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JetPack will drastically lower the learning curve which will result it even more extensions of even more questionable quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715044</id>
	<title>Bad idea</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1263145140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Extensions and the customization they provide is THE reason I use Firefox.  If they are so foolish as to eliminate this capability, they're going to lose a lot of users.  If this happens, I won't upgrade for as long as I can, and when I'm eventually forced to switch, I'll find a browser that supports allowing me to customize it.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if the OSS community forks the project over this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Extensions and the customization they provide is THE reason I use Firefox .
If they are so foolish as to eliminate this capability , they 're going to lose a lot of users .
If this happens , I wo n't upgrade for as long as I can , and when I 'm eventually forced to switch , I 'll find a browser that supports allowing me to customize it .
I would n't be surprised at all if the OSS community forks the project over this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extensions and the customization they provide is THE reason I use Firefox.
If they are so foolish as to eliminate this capability, they're going to lose a lot of users.
If this happens, I won't upgrade for as long as I can, and when I'm eventually forced to switch, I'll find a browser that supports allowing me to customize it.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the OSS community forks the project over this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715012</id>
	<title>Yeah, uh...</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1263144960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...or maybe they just want to draw thousands of inexperienced developers into putting together a bunch of HTML and CSS that won't integrate in the UI...</p></div><p>And this is different than the current system how? Sure, there are TONS of great add-ons/plug-ins/whatever-they-are-called for FF, but honestly, the entry bar is pretty low, and for as many great ones there are, there are two crappy pieces of shit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...or maybe they just want to draw thousands of inexperienced developers into putting together a bunch of HTML and CSS that wo n't integrate in the UI...And this is different than the current system how ?
Sure , there are TONS of great add-ons/plug-ins/whatever-they-are-called for FF , but honestly , the entry bar is pretty low , and for as many great ones there are , there are two crappy pieces of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...or maybe they just want to draw thousands of inexperienced developers into putting together a bunch of HTML and CSS that won't integrate in the UI...And this is different than the current system how?
Sure, there are TONS of great add-ons/plug-ins/whatever-they-are-called for FF, but honestly, the entry bar is pretty low, and for as many great ones there are, there are two crappy pieces of shit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715212</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>FictionPimp</author>
	<datestamp>1263146880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize in their demo video, they write a adblock like jetpack with 80 lines of code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize in their demo video , they write a adblock like jetpack with 80 lines of code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize in their demo video, they write a adblock like jetpack with 80 lines of code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715406</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1263148740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're half right IMO - the extra links provide some useful context, but it's incredibly irritating not knowing which is the main article.</p><p>I realise this goes against all tradition, but why not just have the main link prominently displayed above the summary?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're half right IMO - the extra links provide some useful context , but it 's incredibly irritating not knowing which is the main article.I realise this goes against all tradition , but why not just have the main link prominently displayed above the summary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're half right IMO - the extra links provide some useful context, but it's incredibly irritating not knowing which is the main article.I realise this goes against all tradition, but why not just have the main link prominently displayed above the summary?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718252</id>
	<title>bad idea</title>
	<author>rico13</author>
	<datestamp>1263126360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if firefox get rid of addon capability, then they will shoot themselves in the foot. It's the ONLY reason why i use it as my browser. If they did so, I would migrate to either opera or chrome since theyre faster.
To remove add-ons would be a total illogical decision</htmltext>
<tokenext>if firefox get rid of addon capability , then they will shoot themselves in the foot .
It 's the ONLY reason why i use it as my browser .
If they did so , I would migrate to either opera or chrome since theyre faster .
To remove add-ons would be a total illogical decision</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if firefox get rid of addon capability, then they will shoot themselves in the foot.
It's the ONLY reason why i use it as my browser.
If they did so, I would migrate to either opera or chrome since theyre faster.
To remove add-ons would be a total illogical decision</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715700</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1263151020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope. It is a lighter set of APIs that are intended to change less across versions, which benefits developers that are making lighter weight extensions. There doesn't seem to be much intent to abandon the old mechanism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
It is a lighter set of APIs that are intended to change less across versions , which benefits developers that are making lighter weight extensions .
There does n't seem to be much intent to abandon the old mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
It is a lighter set of APIs that are intended to change less across versions, which benefits developers that are making lighter weight extensions.
There doesn't seem to be much intent to abandon the old mechanism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719448</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla has been floundering for a long time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263139740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what have YOU done to help implement the features you want?  I'm guessing bug reports and feature requests don't speak as loudly as actually giving them high quality patches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what have YOU done to help implement the features you want ?
I 'm guessing bug reports and feature requests do n't speak as loudly as actually giving them high quality patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what have YOU done to help implement the features you want?
I'm guessing bug reports and feature requests don't speak as loudly as actually giving them high quality patches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716064</id>
	<title>Re:Can be done right...</title>
	<author>Compuser</author>
	<datestamp>1263154020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason I do not use Chrome is that I am not aware of UI modifying extensions for it. Is there equivalents of:</p><p>All-In-One Sidebar<br>Compact Menu 2<br>IE View<br>NoUn Buttons<br>Nuke Anything Enhanced<br>New Tab Homepage<br>Reload Tab on Double-Click<br>Remove New Tab Button<br>Stop-or-Reload Button<br>Tooltip Plus<br>VertTabbar<br>WebMail Notifier</p><p>This is a fair subset of extensions I run and rely on for FF to look and feel properly. I did not include AdBlock and Flashblock and a few others because they do not need to modify browser UI so much. And granted that a few extensions like NoUn Buttons is FF-specific and exist to fix stupid UI design choices of FF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason I do not use Chrome is that I am not aware of UI modifying extensions for it .
Is there equivalents of : All-In-One SidebarCompact Menu 2IE ViewNoUn ButtonsNuke Anything EnhancedNew Tab HomepageReload Tab on Double-ClickRemove New Tab ButtonStop-or-Reload ButtonTooltip PlusVertTabbarWebMail NotifierThis is a fair subset of extensions I run and rely on for FF to look and feel properly .
I did not include AdBlock and Flashblock and a few others because they do not need to modify browser UI so much .
And granted that a few extensions like NoUn Buttons is FF-specific and exist to fix stupid UI design choices of FF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason I do not use Chrome is that I am not aware of UI modifying extensions for it.
Is there equivalents of:All-In-One SidebarCompact Menu 2IE ViewNoUn ButtonsNuke Anything EnhancedNew Tab HomepageReload Tab on Double-ClickRemove New Tab ButtonStop-or-Reload ButtonTooltip PlusVertTabbarWebMail NotifierThis is a fair subset of extensions I run and rely on for FF to look and feel properly.
I did not include AdBlock and Flashblock and a few others because they do not need to modify browser UI so much.
And granted that a few extensions like NoUn Buttons is FF-specific and exist to fix stupid UI design choices of FF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718364</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1263127380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No need to find or create a fork. <a href="http://www.seamonkey-project.org/" title="seamonkey-project.org" rel="nofollow">SeaMonkey</a> [seamonkey-project.org] is <em>the</em> project anyone leaving Firefox behind needs to look at, with most of the same bells and whistles, but without the dumbing down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to find or create a fork .
SeaMonkey [ seamonkey-project.org ] is the project anyone leaving Firefox behind needs to look at , with most of the same bells and whistles , but without the dumbing down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need to find or create a fork.
SeaMonkey [seamonkey-project.org] is the project anyone leaving Firefox behind needs to look at, with most of the same bells and whistles, but without the dumbing down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30722224</id>
	<title>Re:Let them do something about the memory leaks</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1263221040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I just had firefox 3.0.3 running overnight on my netbook. 512M, but running Linpus Linux (not XP), with 22 addons.</p><p>Extensions are:</p><p>BetterPrivacy, CookieSafe, DownloadHelper, FEBE, Flagfox, Flashblock, Ghostery, Greasemonkey, MediaWrap, NoScript, NoSquint, Platypus, Torbutton, TrackMeNot, User Agent Switcher, VMware Remote Console Plug-in</p><p>Plugins are:</p><p>Adobe Reader 8.0, mplayerplug-in 3.50, DjVuLibre-3.5.19, GCJ Web Browser Plugin 1.4, Shockwave Flash 10.0 r12, Tcl Plugin 3.1.0</p><p>top - 08:19:26 up 10:55,  2 users,  load average: 0.19, 0.43, 0.44<br>Tasks: 124 total,   4 running, 120 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie<br>Cpu(s): 32.6\%us,  5.4\%sy,  0.0\%ni, 61.4\%id,  0.0\%wa,  0.5\%hi,  0.0\%si,  0.0\%st<br>Mem:    504732k total,   496596k used,     8136k free,    11352k buffers<br>Swap:  1052248k total,       68k used,  1052180k free,   165084k cached</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S \%CPU \%MEM    TIME+  COMMAND<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 542 root      19  -1  352m  16m  11m R   24  3.3  85:38.02 X<br>
&nbsp; 3547 user      20   0  226m  91m  22m R    9 18.6  33:51.96 firefox<br>
&nbsp; 9213 user      20   0 84032  15m 9720 R    4  3.2   0:02.46 Terminal</p><p>[snip]</p><p>The netbook is not unstable; firefox is usable, and is using 91m of memory,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I just had firefox 3.0.3 running overnight on my netbook .
512M , but running Linpus Linux ( not XP ) , with 22 addons.Extensions are : BetterPrivacy , CookieSafe , DownloadHelper , FEBE , Flagfox , Flashblock , Ghostery , Greasemonkey , MediaWrap , NoScript , NoSquint , Platypus , Torbutton , TrackMeNot , User Agent Switcher , VMware Remote Console Plug-inPlugins are : Adobe Reader 8.0 , mplayerplug-in 3.50 , DjVuLibre-3.5.19 , GCJ Web Browser Plugin 1.4 , Shockwave Flash 10.0 r12 , Tcl Plugin 3.1.0top - 08 : 19 : 26 up 10 : 55 , 2 users , load average : 0.19 , 0.43 , 0.44Tasks : 124 total , 4 running , 120 sleeping , 0 stopped , 0 zombieCpu ( s ) : 32.6 \ % us , 5.4 \ % sy , 0.0 \ % ni , 61.4 \ % id , 0.0 \ % wa , 0.5 \ % hi , 0.0 \ % si , 0.0 \ % stMem : 504732k total , 496596k used , 8136k free , 11352k buffersSwap : 1052248k total , 68k used , 1052180k free , 165084k cached     PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S \ % CPU \ % MEM TIME + COMMAND     542 root 19 -1 352m 16m 11m R 24 3.3 85 : 38.02 X   3547 user 20 0 226m 91m 22m R 9 18.6 33 : 51.96 firefox   9213 user 20 0 84032 15m 9720 R 4 3.2 0 : 02.46 Terminal [ snip ] The netbook is not unstable ; firefox is usable , and is using 91m of memory,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I just had firefox 3.0.3 running overnight on my netbook.
512M, but running Linpus Linux (not XP), with 22 addons.Extensions are:BetterPrivacy, CookieSafe, DownloadHelper, FEBE, Flagfox, Flashblock, Ghostery, Greasemonkey, MediaWrap, NoScript, NoSquint, Platypus, Torbutton, TrackMeNot, User Agent Switcher, VMware Remote Console Plug-inPlugins are:Adobe Reader 8.0, mplayerplug-in 3.50, DjVuLibre-3.5.19, GCJ Web Browser Plugin 1.4, Shockwave Flash 10.0 r12, Tcl Plugin 3.1.0top - 08:19:26 up 10:55,  2 users,  load average: 0.19, 0.43, 0.44Tasks: 124 total,   4 running, 120 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombieCpu(s): 32.6\%us,  5.4\%sy,  0.0\%ni, 61.4\%id,  0.0\%wa,  0.5\%hi,  0.0\%si,  0.0\%stMem:    504732k total,   496596k used,     8136k free,    11352k buffersSwap:  1052248k total,       68k used,  1052180k free,   165084k cached
    PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S \%CPU \%MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
    542 root      19  -1  352m  16m  11m R   24  3.3  85:38.02 X
  3547 user      20   0  226m  91m  22m R    9 18.6  33:51.96 firefox
  9213 user      20   0 84032  15m 9720 R    4  3.2   0:02.46 Terminal[snip]The netbook is not unstable; firefox is usable, and is using 91m of memory,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986</id>
	<title>Same as microsoft, gnome, etc dumb it down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263144600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG programming is HARD! We need to reduce features and make it simpler so any moron can do it!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG programming is HARD !
We need to reduce features and make it simpler so any moron can do it ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG programming is HARD!
We need to reduce features and make it simpler so any moron can do it!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715254</id>
	<title>I'll just go to Chrome</title>
	<author>Evro</author>
	<datestamp>1263147300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Extensions - specifically AdBlock Plus and LiveHTTPHeaders - are the only reason I use Firefox over Chrome.  If those extensions go away I'll have no reason to continue using Firefox over Chrome, which is insanely fast by comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Extensions - specifically AdBlock Plus and LiveHTTPHeaders - are the only reason I use Firefox over Chrome .
If those extensions go away I 'll have no reason to continue using Firefox over Chrome , which is insanely fast by comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extensions - specifically AdBlock Plus and LiveHTTPHeaders - are the only reason I use Firefox over Chrome.
If those extensions go away I'll have no reason to continue using Firefox over Chrome, which is insanely fast by comparison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717656</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla has been floundering for a long time</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1263122400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Indeed. In my workplace, that's exactly why we're still using IE despite some of us personally preferring Firefox: zero official support for group policy-based management.</p><p>It's a huge problem and because Firefox are just ignoring it, we can't use them.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
In my workplace , that 's exactly why we 're still using IE despite some of us personally preferring Firefox : zero official support for group policy-based management.It 's a huge problem and because Firefox are just ignoring it , we ca n't use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
In my workplace, that's exactly why we're still using IE despite some of us personally preferring Firefox: zero official support for group policy-based management.It's a huge problem and because Firefox are just ignoring it, we can't use them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716044</id>
	<title>Re:Let them do something about the memory leaks</title>
	<author>zlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1263153780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome's extensions leak memory - after just two hours, AdThwart uses 27 megs and Google Alerter uses 17 Mb, after restarting these plugins use about 8 megabytes of RAM. Chrome uses a completely different extensions concept, a different JS engine with instant garbage collection, so it seems that the main problem is still the lazy extension authors who allocate large amounts of RAM for no particular reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome 's extensions leak memory - after just two hours , AdThwart uses 27 megs and Google Alerter uses 17 Mb , after restarting these plugins use about 8 megabytes of RAM .
Chrome uses a completely different extensions concept , a different JS engine with instant garbage collection , so it seems that the main problem is still the lazy extension authors who allocate large amounts of RAM for no particular reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome's extensions leak memory - after just two hours, AdThwart uses 27 megs and Google Alerter uses 17 Mb, after restarting these plugins use about 8 megabytes of RAM.
Chrome uses a completely different extensions concept, a different JS engine with instant garbage collection, so it seems that the main problem is still the lazy extension authors who allocate large amounts of RAM for no particular reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156</id>
	<title>Mozilla has been floundering for a long time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263146220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Firefox was first released, it was a breath of fresh air -- a fast, effective browser that discarded the bloat which plagued Seamonkey.</p><p>Firefox laid the groundwork that has brought us to the current state of browsers... there's a competitive market, except in the business space, where the inability to manage browser settings has made the enterprise the last refuge for Internet Explorer. Unfortunately, the project doesn't have the desire to expand its impact further -- they refuse to accept bug reports or feature requests regarding issues that are critical to business users, and shout you down when you try to complain.</p><p>So you have this great browser, but you can't script the install, can't manage update distribution (ie. autoupdate is not appropriate in many use cases), and manage config in a sane way.</p><p>Now instead of fixing those issues, they are "fixing" something that isn't broken -- the extension system that makes Firefox so cool for so many people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Firefox was first released , it was a breath of fresh air -- a fast , effective browser that discarded the bloat which plagued Seamonkey.Firefox laid the groundwork that has brought us to the current state of browsers... there 's a competitive market , except in the business space , where the inability to manage browser settings has made the enterprise the last refuge for Internet Explorer .
Unfortunately , the project does n't have the desire to expand its impact further -- they refuse to accept bug reports or feature requests regarding issues that are critical to business users , and shout you down when you try to complain.So you have this great browser , but you ca n't script the install , ca n't manage update distribution ( ie .
autoupdate is not appropriate in many use cases ) , and manage config in a sane way.Now instead of fixing those issues , they are " fixing " something that is n't broken -- the extension system that makes Firefox so cool for so many people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Firefox was first released, it was a breath of fresh air -- a fast, effective browser that discarded the bloat which plagued Seamonkey.Firefox laid the groundwork that has brought us to the current state of browsers... there's a competitive market, except in the business space, where the inability to manage browser settings has made the enterprise the last refuge for Internet Explorer.
Unfortunately, the project doesn't have the desire to expand its impact further -- they refuse to accept bug reports or feature requests regarding issues that are critical to business users, and shout you down when you try to complain.So you have this great browser, but you can't script the install, can't manage update distribution (ie.
autoupdate is not appropriate in many use cases), and manage config in a sane way.Now instead of fixing those issues, they are "fixing" something that isn't broken -- the extension system that makes Firefox so cool for so many people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718530</id>
	<title>Very Misleading...</title>
	<author>Trizicus</author>
	<datestamp>1263128640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jetpack is the addon system for Firefox... It aims to allow addons to work in any browser version. It also aims to split apart the browsers performance being impacted with the more addons installed (in the current firefox the more addons the slow the browser is).

To find the truth about the new addon system watch this: <a href="https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/" title="mozillalabs.com" rel="nofollow">https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/</a> [mozillalabs.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jetpack is the addon system for Firefox... It aims to allow addons to work in any browser version .
It also aims to split apart the browsers performance being impacted with the more addons installed ( in the current firefox the more addons the slow the browser is ) .
To find the truth about the new addon system watch this : https : //jetpack.mozillalabs.com/ [ mozillalabs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jetpack is the addon system for Firefox... It aims to allow addons to work in any browser version.
It also aims to split apart the browsers performance being impacted with the more addons installed (in the current firefox the more addons the slow the browser is).
To find the truth about the new addon system watch this: https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/ [mozillalabs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715010</id>
	<title>Mozilla To Ditch Firefox Extensions?</title>
	<author>omar.sahal</author>
	<datestamp>1263144900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Jetpack is a Mozilla Labs project that enables anyone who knows HTML, CSS, and JavaScript to create powerful Firefox add-ons. Our goal is to allow anyone who can build a Web site to participate in making the Web a better place to work, communicate and play.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Or may be they are going in the right direction. If companies such as google, litl webbook and projects such as bespin are thinking along the lines of creating a GUI/web platform its possible that their's a new direction that computing is headed. One where older heads like us may not necessarily think to go.There are many parallels in computing (PC, Minicomputer, Internet)
Not saying the above is so (I find the above net GUI idea restrictive), it just pays to think about possibilities, such as a more robust GUI without the need for adding complex libraries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jetpack is a Mozilla Labs project that enables anyone who knows HTML , CSS , and JavaScript to create powerful Firefox add-ons .
Our goal is to allow anyone who can build a Web site to participate in making the Web a better place to work , communicate and play .
Or may be they are going in the right direction .
If companies such as google , litl webbook and projects such as bespin are thinking along the lines of creating a GUI/web platform its possible that their 's a new direction that computing is headed .
One where older heads like us may not necessarily think to go.There are many parallels in computing ( PC , Minicomputer , Internet ) Not saying the above is so ( I find the above net GUI idea restrictive ) , it just pays to think about possibilities , such as a more robust GUI without the need for adding complex libraries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jetpack is a Mozilla Labs project that enables anyone who knows HTML, CSS, and JavaScript to create powerful Firefox add-ons.
Our goal is to allow anyone who can build a Web site to participate in making the Web a better place to work, communicate and play.
Or may be they are going in the right direction.
If companies such as google, litl webbook and projects such as bespin are thinking along the lines of creating a GUI/web platform its possible that their's a new direction that computing is headed.
One where older heads like us may not necessarily think to go.There are many parallels in computing (PC, Minicomputer, Internet)
Not saying the above is so (I find the above net GUI idea restrictive), it just pays to think about possibilities, such as a more robust GUI without the need for adding complex libraries.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715732</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1263151200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously.  Provide a link to the main stori(es) and that's about it.  All this extra stuff is simply extraneous.  How can we RTFA if we don't know which is the real frikken article?</p></div><p>That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard!!! This is Slashdot!!!! <b>You arent supposed to read the article!!!!</b> Thus, it shouldnt matter how many links there are!!

</p><p>Get with the program! You've been here long enough to know this!

</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><b>;-)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Provide a link to the main stori ( es ) and that 's about it .
All this extra stuff is simply extraneous .
How can we RTFA if we do n't know which is the real frikken article ? That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard ! ! !
This is Slashdot ! ! ! !
You arent supposed to read the article ! ! ! !
Thus , it shouldnt matter how many links there are ! !
Get with the program !
You 've been here long enough to know this !
; - ) ; - ) ; - ) ; - ) ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Provide a link to the main stori(es) and that's about it.
All this extra stuff is simply extraneous.
How can we RTFA if we don't know which is the real frikken article?That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard!!!
This is Slashdot!!!!
You arent supposed to read the article!!!!
Thus, it shouldnt matter how many links there are!!
Get with the program!
You've been here long enough to know this!
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715574</id>
	<title>Will never happen.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263150000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because that is the only point over using any other browser out there.<br>Firefox is not exactly fast or lightweight, you know. And without extensions it can&rsquo;t hold a candle to Opera.</p><p>If extensions are going to get replaced, it will be by something that is so equal in what it offers, that it most likely still will be called extensions.</p><p>If they really kill their reason of existence off, I&rsquo;ll switch over to Opera in the blink of an eye. The Opera guys never disappointed me, and always were pioneers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that is the only point over using any other browser out there.Firefox is not exactly fast or lightweight , you know .
And without extensions it can    t hold a candle to Opera.If extensions are going to get replaced , it will be by something that is so equal in what it offers , that it most likely still will be called extensions.If they really kill their reason of existence off , I    ll switch over to Opera in the blink of an eye .
The Opera guys never disappointed me , and always were pioneers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that is the only point over using any other browser out there.Firefox is not exactly fast or lightweight, you know.
And without extensions it can’t hold a candle to Opera.If extensions are going to get replaced, it will be by something that is so equal in what it offers, that it most likely still will be called extensions.If they really kill their reason of existence off, I’ll switch over to Opera in the blink of an eye.
The Opera guys never disappointed me, and always were pioneers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716928</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They're simply looking to transition to a new implementation of extensions, which hopefully will bog the browser down less</i></p><p>Ha - firefox manages to bog itself down quite nicely already.</p><p>My biggest pet peeve: if you have a few browser windows open, and you click on a link to a new website. If the DNS response for the new link is slow, the <b>ENTIRE</b> application comes to a halt until the DNS server responds or times out.</p><p>Now, I can understand why 1 window pauses when you click on a new link, but why do all the others? There is no reason for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're simply looking to transition to a new implementation of extensions , which hopefully will bog the browser down lessHa - firefox manages to bog itself down quite nicely already.My biggest pet peeve : if you have a few browser windows open , and you click on a link to a new website .
If the DNS response for the new link is slow , the ENTIRE application comes to a halt until the DNS server responds or times out.Now , I can understand why 1 window pauses when you click on a new link , but why do all the others ?
There is no reason for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're simply looking to transition to a new implementation of extensions, which hopefully will bog the browser down lessHa - firefox manages to bog itself down quite nicely already.My biggest pet peeve: if you have a few browser windows open, and you click on a link to a new website.
If the DNS response for the new link is slow, the ENTIRE application comes to a halt until the DNS server responds or times out.Now, I can understand why 1 window pauses when you click on a new link, but why do all the others?
There is no reason for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715032</id>
	<title>Here's an idea...</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1263145080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...or maybe they just want to draw thousands of inexperienced developers into putting together a bunch of HTML and CSS that won't integrate in the UI...</p></div><p>Just change the scripting engine to PHP...

IT'S A JOKE...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...or maybe they just want to draw thousands of inexperienced developers into putting together a bunch of HTML and CSS that wo n't integrate in the UI...Just change the scripting engine to PHP.. . IT 'S A JOKE.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...or maybe they just want to draw thousands of inexperienced developers into putting together a bunch of HTML and CSS that won't integrate in the UI...Just change the scripting engine to PHP...

IT'S A JOKE...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719892</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>abcphp.com</author>
	<datestamp>1263144720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla is implementing Opera's User JavaScript.</p></div><p>If this is true then Firefox will not require a restart once a plugin is installed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla is implementing Opera 's User JavaScript.If this is true then Firefox will not require a restart once a plugin is installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla is implementing Opera's User JavaScript.If this is true then Firefox will not require a restart once a plugin is installed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30720076</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1263147300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what happens when one reads just the summary.  The functionality isn't going away. The insecure implementation is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when one reads just the summary .
The functionality is n't going away .
The insecure implementation is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when one reads just the summary.
The functionality isn't going away.
The insecure implementation is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715558</id>
	<title>Re:Same as ASSEMBLER, FORTRAN, etc dumb it down</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1263149820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much machine language programming do you do?  Assembler?  Do you use system calls for file I/O, do you roll your own TCP/IP protocol because standards are for wimps and you can get more speed without all that packet overhead?  I think not.  I think you are a wannabe elite.</p><p>I for one welcome our new programming partners, the unwashed masses, the hoi poloi.  The more people write their own programs for their own needs, the more time I can spend on writing more challenging programs that rise to the top.</p><p>Sounds to me like you are not particularly skilled, that you want to feel elite, and it is easier for you to do so by keeping others out of your priesthood than by becoming better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much machine language programming do you do ?
Assembler ? Do you use system calls for file I/O , do you roll your own TCP/IP protocol because standards are for wimps and you can get more speed without all that packet overhead ?
I think not .
I think you are a wannabe elite.I for one welcome our new programming partners , the unwashed masses , the hoi poloi .
The more people write their own programs for their own needs , the more time I can spend on writing more challenging programs that rise to the top.Sounds to me like you are not particularly skilled , that you want to feel elite , and it is easier for you to do so by keeping others out of your priesthood than by becoming better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much machine language programming do you do?
Assembler?  Do you use system calls for file I/O, do you roll your own TCP/IP protocol because standards are for wimps and you can get more speed without all that packet overhead?
I think not.
I think you are a wannabe elite.I for one welcome our new programming partners, the unwashed masses, the hoi poloi.
The more people write their own programs for their own needs, the more time I can spend on writing more challenging programs that rise to the top.Sounds to me like you are not particularly skilled, that you want to feel elite, and it is easier for you to do so by keeping others out of your priesthood than by becoming better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948</id>
	<title>TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263144060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.  Provide a link to the main stori(es) and that's about it.  All this extra stuff is simply extraneous.  How can we RTFA if we don't know which is the real frikken article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Provide a link to the main stori ( es ) and that 's about it .
All this extra stuff is simply extraneous .
How can we RTFA if we do n't know which is the real frikken article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Provide a link to the main stori(es) and that's about it.
All this extra stuff is simply extraneous.
How can we RTFA if we don't know which is the real frikken article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714984</id>
	<title>this isn't news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263144480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's rabblerousing.    Slashdot, news for the hard of thinking.</p><p>Editors, please try to give these stories at least a pretense of fairness.  Unless you need this for your application to work at Fox News.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's rabblerousing .
Slashdot , news for the hard of thinking.Editors , please try to give these stories at least a pretense of fairness .
Unless you need this for your application to work at Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's rabblerousing.
Slashdot, news for the hard of thinking.Editors, please try to give these stories at least a pretense of fairness.
Unless you need this for your application to work at Fox News.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715638</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>McNihil</author>
	<datestamp>1263150540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup it's fork time alright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup it 's fork time alright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup it's fork time alright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30721436</id>
	<title>Well who needs a new firefox</title>
	<author>Fotograf</author>
	<datestamp>1263212220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if they break it too much, it will be forked or old Portable version will always work. Backing up recent state, moving along to next topic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>if they break it too much , it will be forked or old Portable version will always work .
Backing up recent state , moving along to next topic : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they break it too much, it will be forked or old Portable version will always work.
Backing up recent state, moving along to next topic :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718090</id>
	<title>Re:Same as microsoft, gnome, etc dumb it down</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1263125460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can haz Visual Basic for Firefox?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can haz Visual Basic for Firefox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can haz Visual Basic for Firefox?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718106</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla has been floundering for a long time</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1263125580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When Firefox was first released, it was a breath of fresh air -- a fast, effective browser that discarded the bloat which plagued Seamonkey."</p><p>Have you tried v2? It is a lot better than Mozilla v1.x suite and SeaMonkey v1. I prefer having everything integrated like Web browser, e-mail, usenet/newsgroups, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When Firefox was first released , it was a breath of fresh air -- a fast , effective browser that discarded the bloat which plagued Seamonkey .
" Have you tried v2 ?
It is a lot better than Mozilla v1.x suite and SeaMonkey v1 .
I prefer having everything integrated like Web browser , e-mail , usenet/newsgroups , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When Firefox was first released, it was a breath of fresh air -- a fast, effective browser that discarded the bloat which plagued Seamonkey.
"Have you tried v2?
It is a lot better than Mozilla v1.x suite and SeaMonkey v1.
I prefer having everything integrated like Web browser, e-mail, usenet/newsgroups, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717824</id>
	<title>"... and then any moron can do it."</title>
	<author>nhavar</author>
	<datestamp>1263123600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well yeah, isn't that the point. Isn't the whole concept underlying the internet is that anyone can get on and anyone can contribute. Isn't this shared experience about offering people knowledge, helping them learn a new skill, try things out and possibly contribute what they've learned for other people to use and learn from. Then we as a collective get to rate, tag, comment, sort, and share those bits of knowledge allowing the cream to float to the top and the less useful bits fade into obscurity.</p><p>And let's give up on the elitist snobbery thinking that more "advanced" programming languages create a barrier for morons. There are plenty of morons programming in Java,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, C, C++ and other languages. Take a look at TheDailyWTF or talk to any programmer in the business and they can point out moron after moron developing absolutely shit products. Just because it's harder to do doesn't stop people. So it's JavaScript, HTML and CSS, big deal. I've found that the biggest reason programmers don't want to switch over isn't because of limitations in the technologies, but because it's outside of their comfort level and they want to stick with [insert favorite programming language here]. Done right, the API can provide hooks into more robust features in the OS and Browser callable from JavaScript. Plus with HTML5, newer improvements in JS, and CSS, plus Canvas we should see a boon in RIAs and widgets built off of just JavaScript, CSS, and HTML.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well yeah , is n't that the point .
Is n't the whole concept underlying the internet is that anyone can get on and anyone can contribute .
Is n't this shared experience about offering people knowledge , helping them learn a new skill , try things out and possibly contribute what they 've learned for other people to use and learn from .
Then we as a collective get to rate , tag , comment , sort , and share those bits of knowledge allowing the cream to float to the top and the less useful bits fade into obscurity.And let 's give up on the elitist snobbery thinking that more " advanced " programming languages create a barrier for morons .
There are plenty of morons programming in Java , .Net , C , C + + and other languages .
Take a look at TheDailyWTF or talk to any programmer in the business and they can point out moron after moron developing absolutely shit products .
Just because it 's harder to do does n't stop people .
So it 's JavaScript , HTML and CSS , big deal .
I 've found that the biggest reason programmers do n't want to switch over is n't because of limitations in the technologies , but because it 's outside of their comfort level and they want to stick with [ insert favorite programming language here ] .
Done right , the API can provide hooks into more robust features in the OS and Browser callable from JavaScript .
Plus with HTML5 , newer improvements in JS , and CSS , plus Canvas we should see a boon in RIAs and widgets built off of just JavaScript , CSS , and HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well yeah, isn't that the point.
Isn't the whole concept underlying the internet is that anyone can get on and anyone can contribute.
Isn't this shared experience about offering people knowledge, helping them learn a new skill, try things out and possibly contribute what they've learned for other people to use and learn from.
Then we as a collective get to rate, tag, comment, sort, and share those bits of knowledge allowing the cream to float to the top and the less useful bits fade into obscurity.And let's give up on the elitist snobbery thinking that more "advanced" programming languages create a barrier for morons.
There are plenty of morons programming in Java, .Net, C, C++ and other languages.
Take a look at TheDailyWTF or talk to any programmer in the business and they can point out moron after moron developing absolutely shit products.
Just because it's harder to do doesn't stop people.
So it's JavaScript, HTML and CSS, big deal.
I've found that the biggest reason programmers don't want to switch over isn't because of limitations in the technologies, but because it's outside of their comfort level and they want to stick with [insert favorite programming language here].
Done right, the API can provide hooks into more robust features in the OS and Browser callable from JavaScript.
Plus with HTML5, newer improvements in JS, and CSS, plus Canvas we should see a boon in RIAs and widgets built off of just JavaScript, CSS, and HTML.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719224</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1263136740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhhh.. maybe you got a bad extension apple in the barrel? While I can't comment on how you have your VM setup, on a 1.7Ghz Sempron running XP on 1Gb of RAM I am running...lets see..ABP, downloadstatusbar,FEBE,Distrust, Nightly Tester Tools, ForecastFox, Downloadhelper, iMacros, and NoScript. With a half a dozen tabs open I'm only using 57Mb and it is quite snappy.</p><p>So I suggest disabling your extensions one at a time and seeing which one is the bad apple. I'm betting you'll disable one and the memory usage will drop off the charts. Having a powerful framework is like having a powerful language to program in. Just because you have all this power doesn't mean you know how to use it wisely. That certainly isn't something I'd blame Firefox for and sure as hell don't want to give up all that power just because a few coders don't know what to do with it. I'm got Firefox running on all matter of customer's machines, from 1Ghz Celerons with only 256Mb of RAM and 2K pro, to monster quads with 8Gb of RAM and Windows 7, and with a little bit of thought Firefox runs nicely in all of them and most importantly they can have THEIR browser their way thanks to extensions.</p><p>

 I for one don't want to go back to the IE way of "take it or leave it" and being only able to run in ways the developers thought of beforehand, do you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhh.. maybe you got a bad extension apple in the barrel ?
While I ca n't comment on how you have your VM setup , on a 1.7Ghz Sempron running XP on 1Gb of RAM I am running...lets see..ABP , downloadstatusbar,FEBE,Distrust , Nightly Tester Tools , ForecastFox , Downloadhelper , iMacros , and NoScript .
With a half a dozen tabs open I 'm only using 57Mb and it is quite snappy.So I suggest disabling your extensions one at a time and seeing which one is the bad apple .
I 'm betting you 'll disable one and the memory usage will drop off the charts .
Having a powerful framework is like having a powerful language to program in .
Just because you have all this power does n't mean you know how to use it wisely .
That certainly is n't something I 'd blame Firefox for and sure as hell do n't want to give up all that power just because a few coders do n't know what to do with it .
I 'm got Firefox running on all matter of customer 's machines , from 1Ghz Celerons with only 256Mb of RAM and 2K pro , to monster quads with 8Gb of RAM and Windows 7 , and with a little bit of thought Firefox runs nicely in all of them and most importantly they can have THEIR browser their way thanks to extensions .
I for one do n't want to go back to the IE way of " take it or leave it " and being only able to run in ways the developers thought of beforehand , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhh.. maybe you got a bad extension apple in the barrel?
While I can't comment on how you have your VM setup, on a 1.7Ghz Sempron running XP on 1Gb of RAM I am running...lets see..ABP, downloadstatusbar,FEBE,Distrust, Nightly Tester Tools, ForecastFox, Downloadhelper, iMacros, and NoScript.
With a half a dozen tabs open I'm only using 57Mb and it is quite snappy.So I suggest disabling your extensions one at a time and seeing which one is the bad apple.
I'm betting you'll disable one and the memory usage will drop off the charts.
Having a powerful framework is like having a powerful language to program in.
Just because you have all this power doesn't mean you know how to use it wisely.
That certainly isn't something I'd blame Firefox for and sure as hell don't want to give up all that power just because a few coders don't know what to do with it.
I'm got Firefox running on all matter of customer's machines, from 1Ghz Celerons with only 256Mb of RAM and 2K pro, to monster quads with 8Gb of RAM and Windows 7, and with a little bit of thought Firefox runs nicely in all of them and most importantly they can have THEIR browser their way thanks to extensions.
I for one don't want to go back to the IE way of "take it or leave it" and being only able to run in ways the developers thought of beforehand, do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30723924</id>
	<title>Gnome takes over development for Firefox</title>
	<author>mcoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263229140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what, the GNOME developers got bored changing their own interfaces last year and decided to change around all of Mozilla's?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what , the GNOME developers got bored changing their own interfaces last year and decided to change around all of Mozilla 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what, the GNOME developers got bored changing their own interfaces last year and decided to change around all of Mozilla's?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719004</id>
	<title>Re:If AdBlock works, then it'll be fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263133680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have similar reasons. In addition to AdBlock Plus, I also use NoScript here. AdBlock Plus and NoScript keep me on the Mozilla platform, without them I'd most likely switch to Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have similar reasons .
In addition to AdBlock Plus , I also use NoScript here .
AdBlock Plus and NoScript keep me on the Mozilla platform , without them I 'd most likely switch to Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have similar reasons.
In addition to AdBlock Plus, I also use NoScript here.
AdBlock Plus and NoScript keep me on the Mozilla platform, without them I'd most likely switch to Opera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715744</id>
	<title>Mozilla isn't ditching anything.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263151320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla isn't ditching anything.</p><p>Your favorite extension isn't going away.</p><p>The developers are working on building a new platform for safer, faster, and easier to upgrade extensions.</p><p>If that system gets powerful enough to do what the current system does, with the added benefits of being safer, faster, and easier to update, then it should replace the old system.</p><p>Right now the new system cannot do what the old system does so it isn't ready to replace it. It's that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla is n't ditching anything.Your favorite extension is n't going away.The developers are working on building a new platform for safer , faster , and easier to upgrade extensions.If that system gets powerful enough to do what the current system does , with the added benefits of being safer , faster , and easier to update , then it should replace the old system.Right now the new system can not do what the old system does so it is n't ready to replace it .
It 's that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla isn't ditching anything.Your favorite extension isn't going away.The developers are working on building a new platform for safer, faster, and easier to upgrade extensions.If that system gets powerful enough to do what the current system does, with the added benefits of being safer, faster, and easier to update, then it should replace the old system.Right now the new system cannot do what the old system does so it isn't ready to replace it.
It's that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715030</id>
	<title>Re:Same as microsoft, gnome, etc dumb it down</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1263145080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was actually one of the things I was thinking of.  Do we really need to lower the barriers to entry?  Are good ideas really going missing because "extensions are too hard?"</p><p>As a consumer of extensions, I have installed about 20 out of the 8,000 available.  If I have a catalog of 80,000 jetpacks, does that mean I have to look through 10 times as much crap just to find the 10 useful ones?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was actually one of the things I was thinking of .
Do we really need to lower the barriers to entry ?
Are good ideas really going missing because " extensions are too hard ?
" As a consumer of extensions , I have installed about 20 out of the 8,000 available .
If I have a catalog of 80,000 jetpacks , does that mean I have to look through 10 times as much crap just to find the 10 useful ones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was actually one of the things I was thinking of.
Do we really need to lower the barriers to entry?
Are good ideas really going missing because "extensions are too hard?
"As a consumer of extensions, I have installed about 20 out of the 8,000 available.
If I have a catalog of 80,000 jetpacks, does that mean I have to look through 10 times as much crap just to find the 10 useful ones?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30720084</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1263147360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Duuuude... this is slashdot.  Since when do we let facts interfere with our rhetoric?  Troll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Duuuude... this is slashdot .
Since when do we let facts interfere with our rhetoric ?
Troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duuuude... this is slashdot.
Since when do we let facts interfere with our rhetoric?
Troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716720</id>
	<title>Re:Complicated extensions are the reason I use FF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.</p><p>If the Firefox extensions I need are dead, I will probably jump to Opera or something else which is more suitable. I don't trust google (chrome) to implement decent adblocking since they are an ad firm.</p><p>And so will my friends who check with me regarding pretty much any IT stuff they do (who also need stuff like Adblock).</p><p>And so will my clients (SMEs - who also need stuff like Adblock).</p><p>Wonder how long it will take Mozilla to squander the market share they have gained over the years - mainly on the back of geeks who were the ones pushing it the most on the streets. Make most of us change browser, and the word on the street will also change. Or someone will fork it I guess.</p><p>At the very least they should still have the current style extensions allowed. If they are killed so only jetpack works, and our current extensions can't work, it will be interesting times ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.If the Firefox extensions I need are dead , I will probably jump to Opera or something else which is more suitable .
I do n't trust google ( chrome ) to implement decent adblocking since they are an ad firm.And so will my friends who check with me regarding pretty much any IT stuff they do ( who also need stuff like Adblock ) .And so will my clients ( SMEs - who also need stuff like Adblock ) .Wonder how long it will take Mozilla to squander the market share they have gained over the years - mainly on the back of geeks who were the ones pushing it the most on the streets .
Make most of us change browser , and the word on the street will also change .
Or someone will fork it I guess.At the very least they should still have the current style extensions allowed .
If they are killed so only jetpack works , and our current extensions ca n't work , it will be interesting times ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.If the Firefox extensions I need are dead, I will probably jump to Opera or something else which is more suitable.
I don't trust google (chrome) to implement decent adblocking since they are an ad firm.And so will my friends who check with me regarding pretty much any IT stuff they do (who also need stuff like Adblock).And so will my clients (SMEs - who also need stuff like Adblock).Wonder how long it will take Mozilla to squander the market share they have gained over the years - mainly on the back of geeks who were the ones pushing it the most on the streets.
Make most of us change browser, and the word on the street will also change.
Or someone will fork it I guess.At the very least they should still have the current style extensions allowed.
If they are killed so only jetpack works, and our current extensions can't work, it will be interesting times ahead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715120</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263146040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have an interesting point but, do you have any links to support what you're saying?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have an interesting point but , do you have any links to support what you 're saying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have an interesting point but, do you have any links to support what you're saying?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715166</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263146280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?</p></div><p>If Firefox wants to turn itself into another Internet Explorer, I say let them. It's their foot. From a UI perspective, most browsers are largely at parity nowadays anyway, and Mozilla should realize what it is that has made Firefox the most popular non-Microsoft browser. Put it this way: the reason I've used Firefox extensively for the past few years is the security plugins that are available. If you take that away from me, I have no real reason to stick with Firefox, and probably won't. Now, I've never written a Firefox plugin, and I'll take some people's word for it that the model needs updating. But simplifying it to the point where the browser will lose substantial functionality seems like a major backward step.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox ? If Firefox wants to turn itself into another Internet Explorer , I say let them .
It 's their foot .
From a UI perspective , most browsers are largely at parity nowadays anyway , and Mozilla should realize what it is that has made Firefox the most popular non-Microsoft browser .
Put it this way : the reason I 've used Firefox extensively for the past few years is the security plugins that are available .
If you take that away from me , I have no real reason to stick with Firefox , and probably wo n't .
Now , I 've never written a Firefox plugin , and I 'll take some people 's word for it that the model needs updating .
But simplifying it to the point where the browser will lose substantial functionality seems like a major backward step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?If Firefox wants to turn itself into another Internet Explorer, I say let them.
It's their foot.
From a UI perspective, most browsers are largely at parity nowadays anyway, and Mozilla should realize what it is that has made Firefox the most popular non-Microsoft browser.
Put it this way: the reason I've used Firefox extensively for the past few years is the security plugins that are available.
If you take that away from me, I have no real reason to stick with Firefox, and probably won't.
Now, I've never written a Firefox plugin, and I'll take some people's word for it that the model needs updating.
But simplifying it to the point where the browser will lose substantial functionality seems like a major backward step.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717918</id>
	<title>never happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263124380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think this will happen, they are not going to destroy the firefox product in a crowded market with opera,google,ms and others. They would quickly drop in user share - it would be browser suicide</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this will happen , they are not going to destroy the firefox product in a crowded market with opera,google,ms and others .
They would quickly drop in user share - it would be browser suicide</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this will happen, they are not going to destroy the firefox product in a crowded market with opera,google,ms and others.
They would quickly drop in user share - it would be browser suicide</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715920</id>
	<title>Probably!</title>
	<author>Vector7</author>
	<datestamp>1263152880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla's UI team has a ten year history of cluelessly grandiose blunders - so if it seems like they're doing the wrong thing, they probably are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla 's UI team has a ten year history of cluelessly grandiose blunders - so if it seems like they 're doing the wrong thing , they probably are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla's UI team has a ten year history of cluelessly grandiose blunders - so if it seems like they're doing the wrong thing, they probably are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715110</id>
	<title>Complicated extensions are the reason I use FF</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1263145860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually sometimes find myself preferring Safari for actual web-browsing... especially for Slashdot! Firefox seems to slow down when loading long discussion pages, whereas Safari is quite fast. But extensions are Firefox's killer feature. AdBlock Plus, but also Zotero (citation management, only available for Firefox), Greasemonkey + DownloadThemAll... without the extensions, there's little that would make me prefer Firefox to Safari.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually sometimes find myself preferring Safari for actual web-browsing... especially for Slashdot !
Firefox seems to slow down when loading long discussion pages , whereas Safari is quite fast .
But extensions are Firefox 's killer feature .
AdBlock Plus , but also Zotero ( citation management , only available for Firefox ) , Greasemonkey + DownloadThemAll... without the extensions , there 's little that would make me prefer Firefox to Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually sometimes find myself preferring Safari for actual web-browsing... especially for Slashdot!
Firefox seems to slow down when loading long discussion pages, whereas Safari is quite fast.
But extensions are Firefox's killer feature.
AdBlock Plus, but also Zotero (citation management, only available for Firefox), Greasemonkey + DownloadThemAll... without the extensions, there's little that would make me prefer Firefox to Safari.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715494</id>
	<title>Re:Same as microsoft, gnome, etc dumb it down</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1263149340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read their statement and distilled the essence of it down. I was being 'mean spirited' in how I worded it which may come across as sarcastic but that's just a bonus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read their statement and distilled the essence of it down .
I was being 'mean spirited ' in how I worded it which may come across as sarcastic but that 's just a bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read their statement and distilled the essence of it down.
I was being 'mean spirited' in how I worded it which may come across as sarcastic but that's just a bonus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715692</id>
	<title>Re:Let them do something about the memory leaks</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1263150960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your computer becomes usuable because Firefox consumed megabytes of memory you might want to switch to lynx.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your computer becomes usuable because Firefox consumed megabytes of memory you might want to switch to lynx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your computer becomes usuable because Firefox consumed megabytes of memory you might want to switch to lynx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716060</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea</title>
	<author>chdig</author>
	<datestamp>1263153900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent's sig applies perfectly to those that moderated him "insightful".  The number of "Ifs" in the comment remind me of FOX news commentary.<br> <br>
Nowhere is it being proposed that you can no longer extend Firefox -- it's just that you will need to use a more user-friendly language than XUL to do it.  It's called something else, and suddenly those that don't take the time to read the linked articles freak out and declare that the end of the world has come for Firefox.  Does anyone not think that the Firefox team would have thought through the consequences and decided with sober mind that they're positive?<br> <br>
Another poster has already quoted the firebug response, but here goes again: "I don&rsquo;t think these changes will have a big impact on Firebug.  Firefox will continue to support extensions while the jetpack technology matures.  We can adapt as we go along"<br> <br>
If the creators of an extension as complex and deeply embedded in Firefox as Firebug think it's going to be ok, then maybe that's a sign that we should all just take a big breath and chill out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent 's sig applies perfectly to those that moderated him " insightful " .
The number of " Ifs " in the comment remind me of FOX news commentary .
Nowhere is it being proposed that you can no longer extend Firefox -- it 's just that you will need to use a more user-friendly language than XUL to do it .
It 's called something else , and suddenly those that do n't take the time to read the linked articles freak out and declare that the end of the world has come for Firefox .
Does anyone not think that the Firefox team would have thought through the consequences and decided with sober mind that they 're positive ?
Another poster has already quoted the firebug response , but here goes again : " I don    t think these changes will have a big impact on Firebug .
Firefox will continue to support extensions while the jetpack technology matures .
We can adapt as we go along " If the creators of an extension as complex and deeply embedded in Firefox as Firebug think it 's going to be ok , then maybe that 's a sign that we should all just take a big breath and chill out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent's sig applies perfectly to those that moderated him "insightful".
The number of "Ifs" in the comment remind me of FOX news commentary.
Nowhere is it being proposed that you can no longer extend Firefox -- it's just that you will need to use a more user-friendly language than XUL to do it.
It's called something else, and suddenly those that don't take the time to read the linked articles freak out and declare that the end of the world has come for Firefox.
Does anyone not think that the Firefox team would have thought through the consequences and decided with sober mind that they're positive?
Another poster has already quoted the firebug response, but here goes again: "I don’t think these changes will have a big impact on Firebug.
Firefox will continue to support extensions while the jetpack technology matures.
We can adapt as we go along" 
If the creators of an extension as complex and deeply embedded in Firefox as Firebug think it's going to be ok, then maybe that's a sign that we should all just take a big breath and chill out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719088</id>
	<title>Firefox was a bad move, it's been downhill since</title>
	<author>lanner</author>
	<datestamp>1263134820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try Seamonkey 2.0 and compare it to Firefox 3.5 you will understand what I mean.  The decision to cater to grandma and stupid users was about as dumb as what KDE and Gnome are doing right now.  They don't want to focus on the needs of the user.  Instead, they want to write cool new stuff that nobody has done before, never mind if anyone wants it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try Seamonkey 2.0 and compare it to Firefox 3.5 you will understand what I mean .
The decision to cater to grandma and stupid users was about as dumb as what KDE and Gnome are doing right now .
They do n't want to focus on the needs of the user .
Instead , they want to write cool new stuff that nobody has done before , never mind if anyone wants it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try Seamonkey 2.0 and compare it to Firefox 3.5 you will understand what I mean.
The decision to cater to grandma and stupid users was about as dumb as what KDE and Gnome are doing right now.
They don't want to focus on the needs of the user.
Instead, they want to write cool new stuff that nobody has done before, never mind if anyone wants it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718770</id>
	<title>Never have been to start....</title>
	<author>rec9140</author>
	<datestamp>1263131040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Mozilla isn't going in the right direction. What do you think ?"</p><p>They have not been since netscape.</p><p>I don't care for their program and dont use it.</p><p>Konqueror conquerors all! KDE 3.5.10 FOREVER!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mozilla is n't going in the right direction .
What do you think ?
" They have not been since netscape.I do n't care for their program and dont use it.Konqueror conquerors all !
KDE 3.5.10 FOREVER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Mozilla isn't going in the right direction.
What do you think ?
"They have not been since netscape.I don't care for their program and dont use it.Konqueror conquerors all!
KDE 3.5.10 FOREVER!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715986</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla has been floundering for a long time</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1263153420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you have this great browser, but you can't script the install, can't manage update distribution (ie. autoupdate is not appropriate in many use cases), and manage config in a sane way.</p></div><p>It doesn't have special provisions for Linux either, yet every distro seems to manage to do what you described without a problem. Maybe Windows administrative tools are the inadequate software here?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you have this great browser , but you ca n't script the install , ca n't manage update distribution ( ie .
autoupdate is not appropriate in many use cases ) , and manage config in a sane way.It does n't have special provisions for Linux either , yet every distro seems to manage to do what you described without a problem .
Maybe Windows administrative tools are the inadequate software here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you have this great browser, but you can't script the install, can't manage update distribution (ie.
autoupdate is not appropriate in many use cases), and manage config in a sane way.It doesn't have special provisions for Linux either, yet every distro seems to manage to do what you described without a problem.
Maybe Windows administrative tools are the inadequate software here?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715062</id>
	<title>Let them do something about the memory leaks</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1263145380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without Firefox folks doing something about these leaks, I will continue to bash their otherwise good product.</p><p>Heck, leaving Firefox running overnight on Windows XP means a reboot for the computer since it becomes unusable after Firefox has consumed megabytes of memory! This is insane.</p><p>May be the upcoming 4.x release series will have all the goodies one can be proud of. Time will tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without Firefox folks doing something about these leaks , I will continue to bash their otherwise good product.Heck , leaving Firefox running overnight on Windows XP means a reboot for the computer since it becomes unusable after Firefox has consumed megabytes of memory !
This is insane.May be the upcoming 4.x release series will have all the goodies one can be proud of .
Time will tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without Firefox folks doing something about these leaks, I will continue to bash their otherwise good product.Heck, leaving Firefox running overnight on Windows XP means a reboot for the computer since it becomes unusable after Firefox has consumed megabytes of memory!
This is insane.May be the upcoming 4.x release series will have all the goodies one can be proud of.
Time will tell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718104</id>
	<title>Re: midori? go 4 stable damnit</title>
	<author>xiando</author>
	<datestamp>1263125520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've tried both Midori and Arora and I loved using them both until they decided to crash and burn with an hour of (my) normal (ab)usage. Firefox doesn't crash, and it hasn't for many versions. Webkit may rule the web some day, but that day won't come until browsers based upon it stop crashing all day long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tried both Midori and Arora and I loved using them both until they decided to crash and burn with an hour of ( my ) normal ( ab ) usage .
Firefox does n't crash , and it has n't for many versions .
Webkit may rule the web some day , but that day wo n't come until browsers based upon it stop crashing all day long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tried both Midori and Arora and I loved using them both until they decided to crash and burn with an hour of (my) normal (ab)usage.
Firefox doesn't crash, and it hasn't for many versions.
Webkit may rule the web some day, but that day won't come until browsers based upon it stop crashing all day long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716808</id>
	<title>Re:Ditching extensions sounds good to me...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263116940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have never liked the Firefox design, and I have never trusted the XPI installer mechanism.</p></div><p>So don't use it. Pick a browser with a more closed ecosystem instead (Opera?), but leave the powerful addon framework for those of us who need or want it. Firefox is really the only browser around right now where powerful addons are first-class citizens rather than crippled afterthoughts.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Switching to an extension mechanism that doesn't open up the whole performance and security bag of worms the Firefox extensions do would be worth trying.</p></div><p>I would prefer that Google do this with their new Chrome browser, if only to further differentiate it from the more open addon culture expressed by Firefox. There is room for different types of browser in the market today. Firefox caters to the addon niche and should continue to serve it in order to better brand and differentiate itself from other browsers with different (and competing) philosophies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never liked the Firefox design , and I have never trusted the XPI installer mechanism.So do n't use it .
Pick a browser with a more closed ecosystem instead ( Opera ?
) , but leave the powerful addon framework for those of us who need or want it .
Firefox is really the only browser around right now where powerful addons are first-class citizens rather than crippled afterthoughts.Switching to an extension mechanism that does n't open up the whole performance and security bag of worms the Firefox extensions do would be worth trying.I would prefer that Google do this with their new Chrome browser , if only to further differentiate it from the more open addon culture expressed by Firefox .
There is room for different types of browser in the market today .
Firefox caters to the addon niche and should continue to serve it in order to better brand and differentiate itself from other browsers with different ( and competing ) philosophies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never liked the Firefox design, and I have never trusted the XPI installer mechanism.So don't use it.
Pick a browser with a more closed ecosystem instead (Opera?
), but leave the powerful addon framework for those of us who need or want it.
Firefox is really the only browser around right now where powerful addons are first-class citizens rather than crippled afterthoughts.Switching to an extension mechanism that doesn't open up the whole performance and security bag of worms the Firefox extensions do would be worth trying.I would prefer that Google do this with their new Chrome browser, if only to further differentiate it from the more open addon culture expressed by Firefox.
There is room for different types of browser in the market today.
Firefox caters to the addon niche and should continue to serve it in order to better brand and differentiate itself from other browsers with different (and competing) philosophies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716040</id>
	<title>Re:Ditching extensions sounds good to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263153720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might make it harder to do accidentally, but from what I've seen so far it should still be possible for determined authors to make the same type of insecure and leaky extensions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might make it harder to do accidentally , but from what I 've seen so far it should still be possible for determined authors to make the same type of insecure and leaky extensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might make it harder to do accidentally, but from what I've seen so far it should still be possible for determined authors to make the same type of insecure and leaky extensions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715386</id>
	<title>Re:No more AdBlock with JetPack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263148560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure there are several extensions out that do similar things as UnAd which simply use CSS masking to remove the ad frames.</p><p>I'm also pretty sure AdBlock actually refuses to even load the ads and saves bandwidth, whereas these extensions do load them, but hide them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure there are several extensions out that do similar things as UnAd which simply use CSS masking to remove the ad frames.I 'm also pretty sure AdBlock actually refuses to even load the ads and saves bandwidth , whereas these extensions do load them , but hide them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure there are several extensions out that do similar things as UnAd which simply use CSS masking to remove the ad frames.I'm also pretty sure AdBlock actually refuses to even load the ads and saves bandwidth, whereas these extensions do load them, but hide them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716176</id>
	<title>If AdBlock works, then it'll be fine</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1263155400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, to be honest, I don't use FireFox because it is awesome, although it is pretty awesome. I use FireFox because it has AdBlock, which is the killer app for websites. Without AdBlock, the internet becomes immediately useless, with too much noise-to-signal. Other browsers have less compelling ad-blocking extensions; not compelling enough to use. My opinion of this "JetPack" thing will rise or fall with the success of AdBlock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , to be honest , I do n't use FireFox because it is awesome , although it is pretty awesome .
I use FireFox because it has AdBlock , which is the killer app for websites .
Without AdBlock , the internet becomes immediately useless , with too much noise-to-signal .
Other browsers have less compelling ad-blocking extensions ; not compelling enough to use .
My opinion of this " JetPack " thing will rise or fall with the success of AdBlock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, to be honest, I don't use FireFox because it is awesome, although it is pretty awesome.
I use FireFox because it has AdBlock, which is the killer app for websites.
Without AdBlock, the internet becomes immediately useless, with too much noise-to-signal.
Other browsers have less compelling ad-blocking extensions; not compelling enough to use.
My opinion of this "JetPack" thing will rise or fall with the success of AdBlock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715076</id>
	<title>UI Integration?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263145500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Integrating with the UI"? So whatever happen to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xul" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">XUL</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Integrating with the UI " ?
So whatever happen to XUL [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Integrating with the UI"?
So whatever happen to XUL [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717502</id>
	<title>Re:Can be done right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263121260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a way, I think Chrome proves that users really don't care that much about the UI looking and feeling "native", but care much more about it being themable.</p></div><p>Chrome also proves that users don't care about handing control of everything they see and do on the internet to a single private corporation, which to me is a powerful motivator to keep using Firefox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a way , I think Chrome proves that users really do n't care that much about the UI looking and feeling " native " , but care much more about it being themable.Chrome also proves that users do n't care about handing control of everything they see and do on the internet to a single private corporation , which to me is a powerful motivator to keep using Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a way, I think Chrome proves that users really don't care that much about the UI looking and feeling "native", but care much more about it being themable.Chrome also proves that users don't care about handing control of everything they see and do on the internet to a single private corporation, which to me is a powerful motivator to keep using Firefox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717982</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263124800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just change the scripting engine to PHP... IT'S A JOKE...</p></div><p>Yes, well, it'd also need Apache then, and then what we'd get - Firefox/Apache/PHP? FAP?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just change the scripting engine to PHP... IT 'S A JOKE...Yes , well , it 'd also need Apache then , and then what we 'd get - Firefox/Apache/PHP ?
FAP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just change the scripting engine to PHP... IT'S A JOKE...Yes, well, it'd also need Apache then, and then what we'd get - Firefox/Apache/PHP?
FAP?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30721704</id>
	<title>CUSTOM HOSTS file instead (less cpu &amp; global)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Right now, it looks like AdBlock, Flashblock, CustomizeGoogle, and my own AdRater couldn't be implemented under JetPack"</b> - by Animats (122034) on Sunday January 10, @11:40AM (#30715050) Homepage</p></div><p>Per my subject line above? <b>How about a GLOBAL solution, instead, &amp; one that extends to ALL of your "webbound apps", instead, &amp; NOT just to Mozilla softwares which is all your solution works for...</b> (think IE, Outlook &amp; other email programs even, + more), AND, the solution I propose also acts as "layered security" in combination with the FF/Mozilla only methods you use  (which sadly, your methods are KNOWN to slow your browser down, use CPU cycles &amp; more (like having bugs &amp; security flaws in themselves too)... where this solution does not &amp; covers ALL webbound apps, globally)??</p><p>Here is <b>a GOOD SOLID WORK-AROUND, CALLED A HOSTS FILE!</b></p><p><b>HOSTS files also work to YOUR ADVANTAGE, for your money, because you pay for your linetime out of pocket most likely as I do, you can get back your speed, AND, gain security easily, &amp; from a single easily edited file &amp; a file eats no CPU cycles like a local DNS server can</b> (&amp; are not as security vulnerable either if you protect write access to a HOSTS file also)... Anyhow/anyways - Here goes:</p><p>SO - "that all said &amp; aside"? Well, per your reply?? You're solutions cost CPU cycles &amp; are KNOWN to slow down FF/Mozilla variants (as browser addons do), but... Hey - NO PROBLEM, because HOSTS files work alongside those addons too, &amp; offer you more speed online AND more security, via a SINGLE EASILY EDITED + POPULATED FILE (called a HOSTS file):</p><p>I use <b>a custom HOSTS file</b>, in addition to the tools others here in this thread have noted (which MANY like FF addons only really function for FireFox/Mozilla products, but don't extend globally to all other webbound applications, &amp; that is part of what HOSTS files give you above the methods you extoll + utilize: "GLOBAL COVERAGE", &amp; of ALL webbound apps, not just FireFox/Mozilla ones via the addons you noted + use yourself...).</p><p><b>HOSTS files can be used to blockout KNOWN "bad" adserves, maliciously coded sites or adbanners, and "botnet C&amp;C servers" too!</b></p><p><b>You can obtain reliable HOSTS files from reputable lists for more security online, but also for speed!</b></p><p>(More on that later &amp; WHY/HOW (I use reliable lists for that, such as these HOSTS @ Wikipedia.com -&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file</a> [wikipedia.org] or those from mvps.org (a good one this one))</p><p><b>I also further populate &amp; keep current my custom HOSTS file with up to date information in regards to all of those threats, via:</b></p><p>----</p><p>A.) Spybot "Search &amp; Destroy" updates (populates HOSTS and browser block lists)</p><p>B.) Sites like ZDNet's Mr. Dancho Danchev's blog -&gt; <a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>C.) Sites like FireEye -&gt; <a href="http://blog.fireeye.com/" title="fireeye.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.fireeye.com/</a> [fireeye.com]</p><p>D.) SRI -&gt; <a href="http://mtc.sri.com/" title="sri.com" rel="nofollow">http://mtc.sri.com/</a> [sri.com]</p><p>----</p><p>My HOSTS file incorporates ALL of the entries from the HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia as well... gaining me speed online (by blocking adbanners, which have been compromised many times the past few years now by malscripted exploits (examples below)).</p><p>(I combined ALL reputable HOSTS files with one of my own (30,000 entries), &amp; I removed duplicates removed via a Borland Delphi app I wrote to do so called "APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0++". That program also functions to change the default larger &amp; SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking 'loopback adapter' IP address to either 0.0.0.0 (for VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7, smaller &amp; thus faster than 127.0.0.1 default) or the smallest &amp; fastest 0 "blocking 'IP ADDRESS'" (for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 which can STILL use it (&amp; it was added in a service pack on Windows 2000, only on 12/09/2008 MS patch tuesday was it removed for VISTA onwards (&amp; now all these "phunny little bugs" are showing up as FLAWS in this new NDIS6 approach via WFP as well in the firewall, which ROOTKIT.COM has stated (with code too no less on how it is done) -&gt; <a href="http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952" title="rootkit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952</a> [rootkit.com] [rootkit.com] that it is EASIER TO UNHOOK (than was the design used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003))</p><p><b>Another EXCELLENT benefit of HOSTS file usage? More speed online, &amp; also more security + reliability</b> (especially in the case of DNS servers today, per folks like Dan Kaminsky &amp;/or Moxie Marlinspike finding various security vulnerabilities in them the past couple years now)...</p><p><b>AND, YOU CAN GET EVEN MORE SPEED, and RELIABILITY</b> (vs. downed or "DNS poisoned/misdirected" dns servers too) <b>via yet another "hidden bonus for speed" in HOSTS files:</b></p><p>HOW SO? WELL - <b>I use another "technique" called "hardcoding" an IP address to domainname/hostname in my HOSTS files, for my FAVORITE websites:</b></p><p><b>This allows me to FIRST bypass any remote/external DNS lookups, which also would in theory @ least, make me "proofed" vs. DNS request logs by my ISP/BSP also.</b></p><p>(Especially since I use external DNS servers too, OpenDNS ones to be specific, that go beyond my hardcoded favs in my HOSTS file because I can't ping &amp; resolve the ENTIRE internet after all)</p><p>This also makes it harder for others to track me...</p><p>(Sure, they could do a "reverse DNS lookup" via pings &amp;/or traceroutes &amp; the top level domain that does nothing BUT cache reverse DNS lookups does the rest, but that is harder to do, than looking up my URL requests via a log on a DNS server))</p><p><b>ALSO, AS ANOTHER "BONUS" in HOSTS FILES</b> (can't stress it enough, &amp; especially above + beyond adbanner blocking)<b>:  It speeds you up, or can!</b></p><p>E.G.-&gt; A buddy of mine named Jack says it has (verbatim quote) "DOUBLED MY SPEED ONLINE, BUT I VALUE THE SECURITY PART MORE", because he used to get over 200++ viruses a week, now? Only maybe 2 a year IF THAT lately, &amp; he is convinced it is largely due to the HOSTS file I send him weekly (he is my "lab rat #1" due to his previous infestation rate), &amp; if that "anecdotal evidence" is not enough? See this then, from a published security guru on a respected site for it:</p><p>====</p><p><b>RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:</b></p><p>(by Mr. Oliver Day)</p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p><b>PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:</b></p><p>"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."</p><p>"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."</p><p>====</p><p>(A nice bonus beyond blocking adbanners via HOSTS too, because these have been shown to harbor malscripted content too &amp; more than just a few times the past 4-5 yrs now no less such as is noted here in my PS below, several examples thereof no less), because you don't waste between 30-N ms calling out to an external DNS!</p><p>(Again, and a DNS server that MAY be poisoned per Dan Kaminsky the past few years now &amp; others also noting it)</p><p>Thus, <b>SO, even IF your DNS servers go down, or are "dns poisoned"</b> (or fall to yet another security flaw, many are in my "p.s." below no less, as documented evidences thereof to my statements here no less)?</p><p>Well, <b>by using a custom HOSTS file setup, you can STILL GET TO YOUR FAV. SITES IF HARDCODED in your HOSTS FILE &amp; @ higher speeds than DNS server calls, 30-N times faster in fact</b> (a good thing, but one you may have to periodically alter, easily, via notepad.exe edits of your HOSTS file &amp; a ping to update their new address (sites change hosting providers due to better services or prices, rare, but they do &amp; MOST let you know they are about to do so anyhow, so you can amend a HOSTS file)).</p><p>NICEST PART IS, THOUGH, PER YOUR STATEMENT (in addition to the benefits of HOSTS file I note above, alongside others like Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM)?</p><p>I will STILL get to where it is that I WANT TO GO, not the router's onboard DNS server doing hostname/domainname resolutions or potential hijacked redirects... in theory @ least, because I am controlling the hostname/dommainname resolutions @ AN OS + IP STACK LEVEL, not via my routers' onboard DNS server...</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Evidences as to WHY you'd want to add on the "extra layered security protection" of a HOSTS file, which extends global security coverage to your webbound apps, AND, allows for a great deal of added extra speed as well? Ok, here are some documented reasons why like:</p><p>a.) DNS servers vulnerable, under attack, failing or being "DNS poisoned" misdirected &amp; more</p><p>b.) Security suites failing vs. modern "blended threats" online</p><p>c.) javascript being used to do most of this via apps)</p><p>d.) adbanners being maliciously coded also...</p><p>(Here we go with documented proofs/examples:)</p><p>====</p><p><b>POISONED MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERS</b></p><p><b>The Next Ad You Click May Be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Attackers Infect Ads With Old Adobe Vulnerability:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/25/024211" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/25/024211</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick</a> [wired.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Adobe Flash Ads Launching Clipboard Hijack Attacks:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&amp;from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&amp;from=rss</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Slashdot | Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads:</b></p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>====</p><p><b>DNS PROBLEMS:</b></p><p><b>Number of Rogue DNS Servers on the Rise:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/02/15/2118212" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/02/15/2118212</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Security Researcher Kaminsky Pushes DNS Patching:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/2322231" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/2322231</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=05/08/04/1525235" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=05/08/04/1525235</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Another DNS Flaw Found:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/09/2348240" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/09/2348240</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Attack Code Published For DNS Vulnerability:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/07/23/231254" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/07/23/231254</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/09/123222" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/09/123222</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=06/03/16/1658209" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=06/03/16/1658209</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/21/2343250" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/21/2343250</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS Root Servers Attacked:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=07/02/06/2238225" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=07/02/06/2238225</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444354&amp;cid=30109858" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444354&amp;cid=30109858</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Are your servers vulnerable to DNS attacks?</b></p><p><a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html" title="networkworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html</a> [networkworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Kaminsky On DNS Bugs a Year Later and DNSSEC:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS users put higher premium on security:</b></p><p><a href="http://news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/" title="techworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/</a> [techworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>BIND, the Buggy Internet Name Daemon:</b></p><p><a href="http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html" title="cr.yp.to" rel="nofollow">http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html</a> [cr.yp.to]</p><p>(Where djbdns was found to have flaw, though it was alleged invulnerable, they paid out $10,000 reward)</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS Dan Kaminsky DNS SPOOF ATTACK EXPLAINED HOW IT IS DONE:</b></p><p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1520" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1520</a> [zdnet.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS REBINDING ATTACKS: MultiPinning Browser JavaScript Vulnerability</b> (how to protect yourself):</p><p><a href="http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/</a> [stanford.edu]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites:</b></p><p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185</a> [zdnet.com]</p><p>====</p><p><b>SECURITY SUITE PROGRAMS FAILING:</b></p><p><b>AntiVirus Products Fail to Find Simple IE Malware:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/1747237" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/1747237</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Most Security Products Fail To Perform:</b></p><p><a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1445302&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30114652" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1445302&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30114652</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>TOP SECURITY SUITES FAIL 64/300 THREATS in 2008 AT SECUNIA.COM:</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/blog/29/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/blog/29/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Top security suites fail exploit tests:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top\_security\_suites\_fail\_exploit\_tests?intsrc=news\_ts\_head" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top\_security\_suites\_fail\_exploit\_tests?intsrc=news\_ts\_head</a> [computerworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Antivirus is 'completely wasted money': Cisco CSO: News - Security - ZDNet Australia:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm?feed=pt\_auscert" title="zdnet.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm?feed=pt\_auscert</a> [zdnet.com.au]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Are Routers the Next Big Target for Hackers?</b></p><p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=919" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=919</a> [zdnet.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Software Firewalls: Made of Straw? Part 1 of 2:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p><b>Software Firewalls: Made of Straw? Part 2 of 2:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Brief study shows difficulty in detecting malware (2008):</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/858" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/858</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>2007 - Browser vulnerabilities and attacks will continue to mount:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679" title="infoworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679</a> [infoworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Bug exposes Cisco switches to attacks:</b></p><p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches+to+attacks/2110-7349\_3-5902897.html?part=rss&amp;tag=5902897&amp;subj=news" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches+to+attacks/2110-7349\_3-5902897.html?part=rss&amp;tag=5902897&amp;subj=news</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>&amp;</p><p><b>CISCO "COMES CLEAN" ON EXTENT OF IOS FLAW:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>&amp;</p><p><b>Cisco PIX and ASA Time-To-Live Denial of Service Vulnerability:</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/28625/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/28625/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>+</p><p><b>Computer routers face hijack risk - study:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html?ref=rss" title="www.cbc.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html?ref=rss</a> [www.cbc.ca]</p><p>Slashdot Technology Story | Will Mainstream Media Embrace Adblockers?</p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites:</b></p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1432514&amp;cid=30024078" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1432514&amp;cid=30024078</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>====</p><p><b>JAVASCRIPT PROBLEMS:</b></p><p><b>Slashdot | Adobe Confirms PDF Zero-Day, Says Kill JavaScript:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1823234" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1823234</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Adobe Flash Zero-Day Attack Underway:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/28/0138247&amp;from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/28/0138247&amp;from=rss</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>JavaScript flaw reported in Adobe Reader</b> (4th or 5th time already, if not more):</p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/953" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/953</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Another malware pulls an Italian job via JAVASCRIPT:</b></p><p><a href="http://blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/" title="trendmicro.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/</a> [trendmicro.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>JavaScript opens doors to browser-based attacks | CNET News.com:</b></p><p><a href="http://news.com.com/JavaScript+opens+doors+to+browser-based+attacks/2100-7349\_3-6099891.html?part=rss&amp;tag=6099891&amp;subj=news" title="com.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.com.com/JavaScript+opens+doors+to+browser-based+attacks/2100-7349\_3-6099891.html?part=rss&amp;tag=6099891&amp;subj=news</a> [com.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Mozilla Firefox Javascript Garbage Collector Vulnerability - Advisories - Secunia</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/29787/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/29787/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>New script outstrips all other drive-by download risks:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script\_menace/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script\_menace/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Researcher to demonstrate attack code for Intel chips via Javascript:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036" title="infoworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036</a> [infoworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Researcher: JavaScript Attacks Get Slicker:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Rise Of The PDF Exploits:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits" title="trustedsource.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits</a> [trustedsource.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>ADOBE NEW FLAW DOES USE JAVASCRIPT PROOF:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Calendar.20090219" title="shadowserver.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Calendar.20090219</a> [shadowserver.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>AJAX Poses Security, Performance Risks:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Web 2.0 Threats and Risks for Financial Services:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1004&amp;p=1" title="net-security.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1004&amp;p=1</a> [net-security.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.cbronline.com/news/web\_20\_is\_vulnerable\_to\_attack" title="cbronline.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbronline.com/news/web\_20\_is\_vulnerable\_to\_attack</a> [cbronline.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Cross Site Scripting</b> (GOOGLE) <b>and WHY TO TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html" title="cgisecurity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html</a> [cgisecurity.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Why the FBI Director Doesn't Bank Online</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/08/0327240" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/08/0327240</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>====</p><p><b>MAJOR ATTACKS (only a small sample) of WHY LAYERED SECURITY IS NEEDED</b></p><p><b>Is the Botnet Battle Already Lost?</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>IT Pros Say They Can't Stop Data Breaches:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Cyber Attacks On US Military Jump Sharply In 2009</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1452358&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;cid=30185742" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1452358&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;cid=30185742</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Bots Found Inside Many Big Companies:</b></p><p><a href="http://blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots\_found\_inside\_many\_big\_companies.html" title="baselinemag.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots\_found\_inside\_many\_big\_companies.html</a> [baselinemag.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Bot master owns up to 250,000 zombie PCs:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11495" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11495</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Bots surge ahead (2007):</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/466" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/466</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Chinese Hackers Hit Commerce Department:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105227" title="informationweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105227</a> [informationweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>CIA Admits Cyberattacks Blacked Out Cities:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901631" title="informationweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901631</a> [informationweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Compromised Banks and Investment sites list 2006:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233921&amp;cid=19035679" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233921&amp;cid=19035679</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Dancho Danchev's Blog - Mind Streams of Information Security Knowledge: Massive IFRAME SEO Poisoning Attack Continuing:</b></p><p><a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Data at Bank of America, Wachovia, others compromised - May. 23, 2005:</b></p><p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank\_info/index.htm" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank\_info/index.htm</a> [cnn.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Fresh Security Breaches at Los Alamos:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/" title="msn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/</a> [msn.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Infected job search sites lead to info theft for 46,000:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected\_job\_search\_sites\_lead\_to\_info\_theft\_for\_46\_000" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected\_job\_search\_sites\_lead\_to\_info\_theft\_for\_46\_000</a> [computerworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>New Mega-Botnet Discovered:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/2223214" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/2223214</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p>I think THAT list ought to "enlighten" ANYONE, as to why "layered security" is &amp; has been considered largely to be "THE WAY TO GO", vs. that list above (which is only a SMALL \%-age of what I can come up with in regards to threats online + their causes)... HOSTS files help protect vs. those, on several levels - DO consider their usage!</p><p>I'd like to also end this, on a little quote from a fav. film of mine:</p><p><b>"My name is Dr. Robert Neville. I am a survivor living in New York City. I am broadcasting on all a.m. frequencies. I will be in the south street seaport everyday at midday when the sun is highest in the sky. If you are out there, if anyone is out there, I can provide food; I can provide shelter; I can provide security -&gt; <a href="http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=44b7ce1c3ee460d32e68cb97f2597368&amp;showtopic=2662" title="tcmagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=44b7ce1c3ee460d32e68cb97f2597368&amp;showtopic=2662</a> [tcmagazine.com] . If there's anybody out there, anybody, please... you are not alone."</b> - Dr. Robert Neville, I AM LEGEND</p><p>&amp; that film inspired me to write that guide for securing Windows NT-based OS variants, @ the end of 2007, + for my "New Year's Resolution" for 2008, of "Do the right thing &amp; 'pay it forward'"... &amp;, it works.</p><p>Here though?</p><p>Well, I only suggested a SMALL part of that guide here, but a crucial &amp; EFFECTIVE ONE, &amp; mainly because it fits the bill here QUITE specifically &amp; functions globally, instead of just being good for 1 set of apps only (like FF addons are only, unfortunately), &amp; it doesn't eat CPU like those do either OR slow you down (if anything? They speed you up HUGELY, in addition to securing you too as a bonus)...apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Right now , it looks like AdBlock , Flashblock , CustomizeGoogle , and my own AdRater could n't be implemented under JetPack " - by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday January 10 , @ 11 : 40AM ( # 30715050 ) HomepagePer my subject line above ?
How about a GLOBAL solution , instead , &amp; one that extends to ALL of your " webbound apps " , instead , &amp; NOT just to Mozilla softwares which is all your solution works for... ( think IE , Outlook &amp; other email programs even , + more ) , AND , the solution I propose also acts as " layered security " in combination with the FF/Mozilla only methods you use ( which sadly , your methods are KNOWN to slow your browser down , use CPU cycles &amp; more ( like having bugs &amp; security flaws in themselves too ) ... where this solution does not &amp; covers ALL webbound apps , globally ) ?
? Here is a GOOD SOLID WORK-AROUND , CALLED A HOSTS FILE ! HOSTS files also work to YOUR ADVANTAGE , for your money , because you pay for your linetime out of pocket most likely as I do , you can get back your speed , AND , gain security easily , &amp; from a single easily edited file &amp; a file eats no CPU cycles like a local DNS server can ( &amp; are not as security vulnerable either if you protect write access to a HOSTS file also ) ... Anyhow/anyways - Here goes : SO - " that all said &amp; aside " ?
Well , per your reply ? ?
You 're solutions cost CPU cycles &amp; are KNOWN to slow down FF/Mozilla variants ( as browser addons do ) , but... Hey - NO PROBLEM , because HOSTS files work alongside those addons too , &amp; offer you more speed online AND more security , via a SINGLE EASILY EDITED + POPULATED FILE ( called a HOSTS file ) : I use a custom HOSTS file , in addition to the tools others here in this thread have noted ( which MANY like FF addons only really function for FireFox/Mozilla products , but do n't extend globally to all other webbound applications , &amp; that is part of what HOSTS files give you above the methods you extoll + utilize : " GLOBAL COVERAGE " , &amp; of ALL webbound apps , not just FireFox/Mozilla ones via the addons you noted + use yourself... ) .HOSTS files can be used to blockout KNOWN " bad " adserves , maliciously coded sites or adbanners , and " botnet C&amp;C servers " too ! You can obtain reliable HOSTS files from reputable lists for more security online , but also for speed !
( More on that later &amp; WHY/HOW ( I use reliable lists for that , such as these HOSTS @ Wikipedia.com - &gt; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts \ _file [ wikipedia.org ] or those from mvps.org ( a good one this one ) ) I also further populate &amp; keep current my custom HOSTS file with up to date information in regards to all of those threats , via : ----A .
) Spybot " Search &amp; Destroy " updates ( populates HOSTS and browser block lists ) B .
) Sites like ZDNet 's Mr. Dancho Danchev 's blog - &gt; http : //ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] C. ) Sites like FireEye - &gt; http : //blog.fireeye.com/ [ fireeye.com ] D. ) SRI - &gt; http : //mtc.sri.com/ [ sri.com ] ----My HOSTS file incorporates ALL of the entries from the HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia as well... gaining me speed online ( by blocking adbanners , which have been compromised many times the past few years now by malscripted exploits ( examples below ) ) .
( I combined ALL reputable HOSTS files with one of my own ( 30,000 entries ) , &amp; I removed duplicates removed via a Borland Delphi app I wrote to do so called " APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0 + + " .
That program also functions to change the default larger &amp; SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking 'loopback adapter ' IP address to either 0.0.0.0 ( for VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7 , smaller &amp; thus faster than 127.0.0.1 default ) or the smallest &amp; fastest 0 " blocking 'IP ADDRESS ' " ( for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 which can STILL use it ( &amp; it was added in a service pack on Windows 2000 , only on 12/09/2008 MS patch tuesday was it removed for VISTA onwards ( &amp; now all these " phunny little bugs " are showing up as FLAWS in this new NDIS6 approach via WFP as well in the firewall , which ROOTKIT.COM has stated ( with code too no less on how it is done ) - &gt; http : //www.rootkit.com/newsread.php ? newsid = 952 [ rootkit.com ] [ rootkit.com ] that it is EASIER TO UNHOOK ( than was the design used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 ) ) Another EXCELLENT benefit of HOSTS file usage ?
More speed online , &amp; also more security + reliability ( especially in the case of DNS servers today , per folks like Dan Kaminsky &amp;/or Moxie Marlinspike finding various security vulnerabilities in them the past couple years now ) ...AND , YOU CAN GET EVEN MORE SPEED , and RELIABILITY ( vs. downed or " DNS poisoned/misdirected " dns servers too ) via yet another " hidden bonus for speed " in HOSTS files : HOW SO ?
WELL - I use another " technique " called " hardcoding " an IP address to domainname/hostname in my HOSTS files , for my FAVORITE websites : This allows me to FIRST bypass any remote/external DNS lookups , which also would in theory @ least , make me " proofed " vs. DNS request logs by my ISP/BSP also .
( Especially since I use external DNS servers too , OpenDNS ones to be specific , that go beyond my hardcoded favs in my HOSTS file because I ca n't ping &amp; resolve the ENTIRE internet after all ) This also makes it harder for others to track me... ( Sure , they could do a " reverse DNS lookup " via pings &amp;/or traceroutes &amp; the top level domain that does nothing BUT cache reverse DNS lookups does the rest , but that is harder to do , than looking up my URL requests via a log on a DNS server ) ) ALSO , AS ANOTHER " BONUS " in HOSTS FILES ( ca n't stress it enough , &amp; especially above + beyond adbanner blocking ) : It speeds you up , or can ! E.G.- &gt; A buddy of mine named Jack says it has ( verbatim quote ) " DOUBLED MY SPEED ONLINE , BUT I VALUE THE SECURITY PART MORE " , because he used to get over 200 + + viruses a week , now ?
Only maybe 2 a year IF THAT lately , &amp; he is convinced it is largely due to the HOSTS file I send him weekly ( he is my " lab rat # 1 " due to his previous infestation rate ) , &amp; if that " anecdotal evidence " is not enough ?
See this then , from a published security guru on a respected site for it : = = = = RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE : ( by Mr. Oliver Day ) http : //www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [ securityfocus.com ] PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES : " The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long .
Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now .
" " From what I have seen in my research , major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade .
The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties .
More recently , projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware .
" = = = = ( A nice bonus beyond blocking adbanners via HOSTS too , because these have been shown to harbor malscripted content too &amp; more than just a few times the past 4-5 yrs now no less such as is noted here in my PS below , several examples thereof no less ) , because you do n't waste between 30-N ms calling out to an external DNS !
( Again , and a DNS server that MAY be poisoned per Dan Kaminsky the past few years now &amp; others also noting it ) Thus , SO , even IF your DNS servers go down , or are " dns poisoned " ( or fall to yet another security flaw , many are in my " p.s .
" below no less , as documented evidences thereof to my statements here no less ) ? Well , by using a custom HOSTS file setup , you can STILL GET TO YOUR FAV .
SITES IF HARDCODED in your HOSTS FILE &amp; @ higher speeds than DNS server calls , 30-N times faster in fact ( a good thing , but one you may have to periodically alter , easily , via notepad.exe edits of your HOSTS file &amp; a ping to update their new address ( sites change hosting providers due to better services or prices , rare , but they do &amp; MOST let you know they are about to do so anyhow , so you can amend a HOSTS file ) ) .NICEST PART IS , THOUGH , PER YOUR STATEMENT ( in addition to the benefits of HOSTS file I note above , alongside others like Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM ) ? I will STILL get to where it is that I WANT TO GO , not the router 's onboard DNS server doing hostname/domainname resolutions or potential hijacked redirects... in theory @ least , because I am controlling the hostname/dommainname resolutions @ AN OS + IP STACK LEVEL , not via my routers ' onboard DNS server...APKP.S. = &gt; Evidences as to WHY you 'd want to add on the " extra layered security protection " of a HOSTS file , which extends global security coverage to your webbound apps , AND , allows for a great deal of added extra speed as well ?
Ok , here are some documented reasons why like : a .
) DNS servers vulnerable , under attack , failing or being " DNS poisoned " misdirected &amp; moreb .
) Security suites failing vs. modern " blended threats " onlinec .
) javascript being used to do most of this via apps ) d. ) adbanners being maliciously coded also... ( Here we go with documented proofs/examples : ) = = = = POISONED MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERSThe Next Ad You Click May Be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] ----Attackers Infect Ads With Old Adobe Vulnerability : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/02/25/024211 [ slashdot.org ] ----Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC : http : //www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [ wired.com ] ----Adobe Flash Ads Launching Clipboard Hijack Attacks : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/08/20/0029220&amp;from = rss [ slashdot.org ] ----Slashdot | Americans Do n't Want Targeted Ads : http : //yro.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/10/01/1854214 [ slashdot.org ] = = = = DNS PROBLEMS : Number of Rogue DNS Servers on the Rise : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 08/02/15/2118212 [ slashdot.org ] ----Security Researcher Kaminsky Pushes DNS Patching : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/02/19/2322231 [ slashdot.org ] ----Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 05/08/04/1525235 [ slashdot.org ] ----TimeWarner DNS Hijacking : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/07/23/2140208 [ slashdot.org ] ----Another DNS Flaw Found : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/01/09/2348240 [ slashdot.org ] ----Attack Code Published For DNS Vulnerability : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 08/07/23/231254 [ slashdot.org ] ----BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 08/08/09/123222 [ slashdot.org ] ----DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 06/03/16/1658209 [ slashdot.org ] ----DNS Poisoning Hits One of China 's Biggest ISPs : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 08/08/21/2343250 [ slashdot.org ] ----DNS Root Servers Attacked : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 07/02/06/2238225 [ slashdot.org ] ----DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse : http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1444354&amp;cid = 30109858 [ slashdot.org ] ----Are your servers vulnerable to DNS attacks ? http : //www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html [ networkworld.com ] ----Kaminsky On DNS Bugs a Year Later and DNSSEC : http : //it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC [ slashdot.org ] ----DNS users put higher premium on security : http : //news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/ [ techworld.com ] ----BIND , the Buggy Internet Name Daemon : http : //cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html [ cr.yp.to ] ( Where djbdns was found to have flaw , though it was alleged invulnerable , they paid out $ 10,000 reward ) ----DNS Dan Kaminsky DNS SPOOF ATTACK EXPLAINED HOW IT IS DONE : http : //blogs.zdnet.com/security/ ? p = 1520 [ zdnet.com ] ----DNS REBINDING ATTACKS : MultiPinning Browser JavaScript Vulnerability ( how to protect yourself ) : http : //crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [ stanford.edu ] ----Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites : http : //blogs.zdnet.com/security/ ? p = 3185 [ zdnet.com ] = = = = SECURITY SUITE PROGRAMS FAILING : AntiVirus Products Fail to Find Simple IE Malware : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/10/29/1747237 [ slashdot.org ] ----Most Security Products Fail To Perform : http : //hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1445302&amp;threshold = -1&amp;commentsort = 0&amp;mode = thread&amp;pid = 30114652 [ slashdot.org ] ----TOP SECURITY SUITES FAIL 64/300 THREATS in 2008 AT SECUNIA.COM : http : //secunia.com/blog/29/ [ secunia.com ] ----Top security suites fail exploit tests : http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top \ _security \ _suites \ _fail \ _exploit \ _tests ? intsrc = news \ _ts \ _head [ computerworld.com ] ----Antivirus is 'completely wasted money ' : Cisco CSO : News - Security - ZDNet Australia : http : //www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm ? feed = pt \ _auscert [ zdnet.com.au ] ----Are Routers the Next Big Target for Hackers ? http : //blogs.zdnet.com/security/ ? p = 919 [ zdnet.com ] ----Software Firewalls : Made of Straw ?
Part 1 of 2 : http : //www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839 [ securityfocus.com ] Software Firewalls : Made of Straw ?
Part 2 of 2 : http : //www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2 [ securityfocus.com ] ----Brief study shows difficulty in detecting malware ( 2008 ) : http : //www.securityfocus.com/brief/858 [ securityfocus.com ] ----2007 - Browser vulnerabilities and attacks will continue to mount : http : //www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679 [ infoworld.com ] ----Bug exposes Cisco switches to attacks : http : //news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches + to + attacks/2110-7349 \ _3-5902897.html ? part = rss&amp;tag = 5902897&amp;subj = news [ cnet.com ] &amp;CISCO " COMES CLEAN " ON EXTENT OF IOS FLAW : http : //www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/ [ eweek.com ] &amp;Cisco PIX and ASA Time-To-Live Denial of Service Vulnerability : http : //secunia.com/advisories/28625/ [ secunia.com ] + Computer routers face hijack risk - study : http : //www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html ? ref = rss [ www.cbc.ca ] Slashdot Technology Story | Will Mainstream Media Embrace Adblockers ? http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers [ slashdot.org ] ----Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites : http : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1432514&amp;cid = 30024078 [ slashdot.org ] = = = = JAVASCRIPT PROBLEMS : Slashdot | Adobe Confirms PDF Zero-Day , Says Kill JavaScript : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/04/29/1823234 [ slashdot.org ] ----Adobe Flash Zero-Day Attack Underway : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/05/28/0138247&amp;from = rss [ slashdot.org ] ----JavaScript flaw reported in Adobe Reader ( 4th or 5th time already , if not more ) : http : //www.securityfocus.com/brief/953 [ securityfocus.com ] ----Another malware pulls an Italian job via JAVASCRIPT : http : //blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/ [ trendmicro.com ] ----JavaScript opens doors to browser-based attacks | CNET News.com : http : //news.com.com/JavaScript + opens + doors + to + browser-based + attacks/2100-7349 \ _3-6099891.html ? part = rss&amp;tag = 6099891&amp;subj = news [ com.com ] ----Mozilla Firefox Javascript Garbage Collector Vulnerability - Advisories - Secuniahttp : //secunia.com/advisories/29787/ [ secunia.com ] ----New script outstrips all other drive-by download risks : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script \ _menace/ [ theregister.co.uk ] ----Researcher to demonstrate attack code for Intel chips via Javascript : http : //www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036 [ infoworld.com ] ----Researcher : JavaScript Attacks Get Slicker : http : //www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/ [ eweek.com ] ----Rise Of The PDF Exploits : http : //www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits [ trustedsource.org ] ----ADOBE NEW FLAW DOES USE JAVASCRIPT PROOF : http : //www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php ? n = Calendar.20090219 [ shadowserver.org ] ----AJAX Poses Security , Performance Risks : http : //www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp [ eweek.com ] ----Web 2.0 Threats and Risks for Financial Services : http : //www.net-security.org/article.php ? id = 1004&amp;p = 1 [ net-security.org ] http : //www.cbronline.com/news/web \ _20 \ _is \ _vulnerable \ _to \ _attack [ cbronline.com ] ----Cross Site Scripting ( GOOGLE ) and WHY TO TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT : http : //www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html [ cgisecurity.com ] ----Why the FBI Director Does n't Bank Onlinehttp : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/10/08/0327240 [ slashdot.org ] = = = = MAJOR ATTACKS ( only a small sample ) of WHY LAYERED SECURITY IS NEEDEDIs the Botnet Battle Already Lost ? http : //www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp [ eweek.com ] ----IT Pros Say They Ca n't Stop Data Breaches : http : //www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp ? kc = EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD [ eweek.com ] ----Cyber Attacks On US Military Jump Sharply In 2009http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1452358&amp;threshold = -1&amp;commentsort = 0&amp;mode = thread&amp;cid = 30185742 [ slashdot.org ] ----Bots Found Inside Many Big Companies : http : //blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots \ _found \ _inside \ _many \ _big \ _companies.html [ baselinemag.com ] ----Bot master owns up to 250,000 zombie PCs : http : //www.securityfocus.com/news/11495 [ securityfocus.com ] ----Bots surge ahead ( 2007 ) : http : //www.securityfocus.com/brief/466 [ securityfocus.com ] ----Chinese Hackers Hit Commerce Department : http : //www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml ? articleID = 193105227 [ informationweek.com ] ----CIA Admits Cyberattacks Blacked Out Cities : http : //www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml ? articleID = 205901631 [ informationweek.com ] ----Compromised Banks and Investment sites list 2006 : http : //it.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 233921&amp;cid = 19035679 [ slashdot.org ] ----Dancho Danchev 's Blog - Mind Streams of Information Security Knowledge : Massive IFRAME SEO Poisoning Attack Continuing : http : //ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html [ blogspot.com ] ----Data at Bank of America , Wachovia , others compromised - May .
23 , 2005 : http : //money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank \ _info/index.htm [ cnn.com ] ----Fresh Security Breaches at Los Alamos : http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/ [ msn.com ] ----Infected job search sites lead to info theft for 46,000 : http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected \ _job \ _search \ _sites \ _lead \ _to \ _info \ _theft \ _for \ _46 \ _000 [ computerworld.com ] ----New Mega-Botnet Discovered : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/04/22/2223214 [ slashdot.org ] ----I think THAT list ought to " enlighten " ANYONE , as to why " layered security " is &amp; has been considered largely to be " THE WAY TO GO " , vs. that list above ( which is only a SMALL \ % -age of what I can come up with in regards to threats online + their causes ) ... HOSTS files help protect vs. those , on several levels - DO consider their usage ! I 'd like to also end this , on a little quote from a fav .
film of mine : " My name is Dr. Robert Neville .
I am a survivor living in New York City .
I am broadcasting on all a.m. frequencies. I will be in the south street seaport everyday at midday when the sun is highest in the sky .
If you are out there , if anyone is out there , I can provide food ; I can provide shelter ; I can provide security - &gt; http : //www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php ? s = 44b7ce1c3ee460d32e68cb97f2597368&amp;showtopic = 2662 [ tcmagazine.com ] .
If there 's anybody out there , anybody , please... you are not alone .
" - Dr. Robert Neville , I AM LEGEND&amp; that film inspired me to write that guide for securing Windows NT-based OS variants , @ the end of 2007 , + for my " New Year 's Resolution " for 2008 , of " Do the right thing &amp; 'pay it forward ' " ... &amp; , it works.Here though ? Well , I only suggested a SMALL part of that guide here , but a crucial &amp; EFFECTIVE ONE , &amp; mainly because it fits the bill here QUITE specifically &amp; functions globally , instead of just being good for 1 set of apps only ( like FF addons are only , unfortunately ) , &amp; it does n't eat CPU like those do either OR slow you down ( if anything ?
They speed you up HUGELY , in addition to securing you too as a bonus ) ...apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Right now, it looks like AdBlock, Flashblock, CustomizeGoogle, and my own AdRater couldn't be implemented under JetPack" - by Animats (122034) on Sunday January 10, @11:40AM (#30715050) HomepagePer my subject line above?
How about a GLOBAL solution, instead, &amp; one that extends to ALL of your "webbound apps", instead, &amp; NOT just to Mozilla softwares which is all your solution works for... (think IE, Outlook &amp; other email programs even, + more), AND, the solution I propose also acts as "layered security" in combination with the FF/Mozilla only methods you use  (which sadly, your methods are KNOWN to slow your browser down, use CPU cycles &amp; more (like having bugs &amp; security flaws in themselves too)... where this solution does not &amp; covers ALL webbound apps, globally)?
?Here is a GOOD SOLID WORK-AROUND, CALLED A HOSTS FILE!HOSTS files also work to YOUR ADVANTAGE, for your money, because you pay for your linetime out of pocket most likely as I do, you can get back your speed, AND, gain security easily, &amp; from a single easily edited file &amp; a file eats no CPU cycles like a local DNS server can (&amp; are not as security vulnerable either if you protect write access to a HOSTS file also)... Anyhow/anyways - Here goes:SO - "that all said &amp; aside"?
Well, per your reply??
You're solutions cost CPU cycles &amp; are KNOWN to slow down FF/Mozilla variants (as browser addons do), but... Hey - NO PROBLEM, because HOSTS files work alongside those addons too, &amp; offer you more speed online AND more security, via a SINGLE EASILY EDITED + POPULATED FILE (called a HOSTS file):I use a custom HOSTS file, in addition to the tools others here in this thread have noted (which MANY like FF addons only really function for FireFox/Mozilla products, but don't extend globally to all other webbound applications, &amp; that is part of what HOSTS files give you above the methods you extoll + utilize: "GLOBAL COVERAGE", &amp; of ALL webbound apps, not just FireFox/Mozilla ones via the addons you noted + use yourself...).HOSTS files can be used to blockout KNOWN "bad" adserves, maliciously coded sites or adbanners, and "botnet C&amp;C servers" too!You can obtain reliable HOSTS files from reputable lists for more security online, but also for speed!
(More on that later &amp; WHY/HOW (I use reliable lists for that, such as these HOSTS @ Wikipedia.com -&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file [wikipedia.org] or those from mvps.org (a good one this one))I also further populate &amp; keep current my custom HOSTS file with up to date information in regards to all of those threats, via:----A.
) Spybot "Search &amp; Destroy" updates (populates HOSTS and browser block lists)B.
) Sites like ZDNet's Mr. Dancho Danchev's blog -&gt; http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]C.) Sites like FireEye -&gt; http://blog.fireeye.com/ [fireeye.com]D.) SRI -&gt; http://mtc.sri.com/ [sri.com]----My HOSTS file incorporates ALL of the entries from the HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia as well... gaining me speed online (by blocking adbanners, which have been compromised many times the past few years now by malscripted exploits (examples below)).
(I combined ALL reputable HOSTS files with one of my own (30,000 entries), &amp; I removed duplicates removed via a Borland Delphi app I wrote to do so called "APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0++".
That program also functions to change the default larger &amp; SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking 'loopback adapter' IP address to either 0.0.0.0 (for VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7, smaller &amp; thus faster than 127.0.0.1 default) or the smallest &amp; fastest 0 "blocking 'IP ADDRESS'" (for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 which can STILL use it (&amp; it was added in a service pack on Windows 2000, only on 12/09/2008 MS patch tuesday was it removed for VISTA onwards (&amp; now all these "phunny little bugs" are showing up as FLAWS in this new NDIS6 approach via WFP as well in the firewall, which ROOTKIT.COM has stated (with code too no less on how it is done) -&gt; http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952 [rootkit.com] [rootkit.com] that it is EASIER TO UNHOOK (than was the design used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003))Another EXCELLENT benefit of HOSTS file usage?
More speed online, &amp; also more security + reliability (especially in the case of DNS servers today, per folks like Dan Kaminsky &amp;/or Moxie Marlinspike finding various security vulnerabilities in them the past couple years now)...AND, YOU CAN GET EVEN MORE SPEED, and RELIABILITY (vs. downed or "DNS poisoned/misdirected" dns servers too) via yet another "hidden bonus for speed" in HOSTS files:HOW SO?
WELL - I use another "technique" called "hardcoding" an IP address to domainname/hostname in my HOSTS files, for my FAVORITE websites:This allows me to FIRST bypass any remote/external DNS lookups, which also would in theory @ least, make me "proofed" vs. DNS request logs by my ISP/BSP also.
(Especially since I use external DNS servers too, OpenDNS ones to be specific, that go beyond my hardcoded favs in my HOSTS file because I can't ping &amp; resolve the ENTIRE internet after all)This also makes it harder for others to track me...(Sure, they could do a "reverse DNS lookup" via pings &amp;/or traceroutes &amp; the top level domain that does nothing BUT cache reverse DNS lookups does the rest, but that is harder to do, than looking up my URL requests via a log on a DNS server))ALSO, AS ANOTHER "BONUS" in HOSTS FILES (can't stress it enough, &amp; especially above + beyond adbanner blocking):  It speeds you up, or can!E.G.-&gt; A buddy of mine named Jack says it has (verbatim quote) "DOUBLED MY SPEED ONLINE, BUT I VALUE THE SECURITY PART MORE", because he used to get over 200++ viruses a week, now?
Only maybe 2 a year IF THAT lately, &amp; he is convinced it is largely due to the HOSTS file I send him weekly (he is my "lab rat #1" due to his previous infestation rate), &amp; if that "anecdotal evidence" is not enough?
See this then, from a published security guru on a respected site for it:====RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:(by Mr. Oliver Day)http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long.
Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now.
""From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade.
The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties.
More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware.
"====(A nice bonus beyond blocking adbanners via HOSTS too, because these have been shown to harbor malscripted content too &amp; more than just a few times the past 4-5 yrs now no less such as is noted here in my PS below, several examples thereof no less), because you don't waste between 30-N ms calling out to an external DNS!
(Again, and a DNS server that MAY be poisoned per Dan Kaminsky the past few years now &amp; others also noting it)Thus, SO, even IF your DNS servers go down, or are "dns poisoned" (or fall to yet another security flaw, many are in my "p.s.
" below no less, as documented evidences thereof to my statements here no less)?Well, by using a custom HOSTS file setup, you can STILL GET TO YOUR FAV.
SITES IF HARDCODED in your HOSTS FILE &amp; @ higher speeds than DNS server calls, 30-N times faster in fact (a good thing, but one you may have to periodically alter, easily, via notepad.exe edits of your HOSTS file &amp; a ping to update their new address (sites change hosting providers due to better services or prices, rare, but they do &amp; MOST let you know they are about to do so anyhow, so you can amend a HOSTS file)).NICEST PART IS, THOUGH, PER YOUR STATEMENT (in addition to the benefits of HOSTS file I note above, alongside others like Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM)?I will STILL get to where it is that I WANT TO GO, not the router's onboard DNS server doing hostname/domainname resolutions or potential hijacked redirects... in theory @ least, because I am controlling the hostname/dommainname resolutions @ AN OS + IP STACK LEVEL, not via my routers' onboard DNS server...APKP.S.=&gt; Evidences as to WHY you'd want to add on the "extra layered security protection" of a HOSTS file, which extends global security coverage to your webbound apps, AND, allows for a great deal of added extra speed as well?
Ok, here are some documented reasons why like:a.
) DNS servers vulnerable, under attack, failing or being "DNS poisoned" misdirected &amp; moreb.
) Security suites failing vs. modern "blended threats" onlinec.
) javascript being used to do most of this via apps)d.) adbanners being maliciously coded also...(Here we go with documented proofs/examples:)====POISONED MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERSThe Next Ad You Click May Be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]----Attackers Infect Ads With Old Adobe Vulnerability:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/25/024211 [slashdot.org]----Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]----Adobe Flash Ads Launching Clipboard Hijack Attacks:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&amp;from=rss [slashdot.org]----Slashdot | Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads:http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214 [slashdot.org]====DNS PROBLEMS:Number of Rogue DNS Servers on the Rise:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/02/15/2118212 [slashdot.org]----Security Researcher Kaminsky Pushes DNS Patching:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/2322231 [slashdot.org]----Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=05/08/04/1525235 [slashdot.org]----TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]----Another DNS Flaw Found:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/09/2348240 [slashdot.org]----Attack Code Published For DNS Vulnerability:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/07/23/231254 [slashdot.org]----BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/09/123222 [slashdot.org]----DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=06/03/16/1658209 [slashdot.org]----DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/21/2343250 [slashdot.org]----DNS Root Servers Attacked:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=07/02/06/2238225 [slashdot.org]----DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444354&amp;cid=30109858 [slashdot.org]----Are your servers vulnerable to DNS attacks?http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html [networkworld.com]----Kaminsky On DNS Bugs a Year Later and DNSSEC:http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC [slashdot.org]----DNS users put higher premium on security:http://news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/ [techworld.com]----BIND, the Buggy Internet Name Daemon:http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html [cr.yp.to](Where djbdns was found to have flaw, though it was alleged invulnerable, they paid out $10,000 reward)----DNS Dan Kaminsky DNS SPOOF ATTACK EXPLAINED HOW IT IS DONE:http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1520 [zdnet.com]----DNS REBINDING ATTACKS: MultiPinning Browser JavaScript Vulnerability (how to protect yourself):http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]----Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites:http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185 [zdnet.com]====SECURITY SUITE PROGRAMS FAILING:AntiVirus Products Fail to Find Simple IE Malware:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/1747237 [slashdot.org]----Most Security Products Fail To Perform:http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1445302&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30114652 [slashdot.org]----TOP SECURITY SUITES FAIL 64/300 THREATS in 2008 AT SECUNIA.COM:http://secunia.com/blog/29/ [secunia.com]----Top security suites fail exploit tests:http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top\_security\_suites\_fail\_exploit\_tests?intsrc=news\_ts\_head [computerworld.com]----Antivirus is 'completely wasted money': Cisco CSO: News - Security - ZDNet Australia:http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm?feed=pt\_auscert [zdnet.com.au]----Are Routers the Next Big Target for Hackers?http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=919 [zdnet.com]----Software Firewalls: Made of Straw?
Part 1 of 2:http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839 [securityfocus.com]Software Firewalls: Made of Straw?
Part 2 of 2:http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2 [securityfocus.com]----Brief study shows difficulty in detecting malware (2008):http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/858 [securityfocus.com]----2007 - Browser vulnerabilities and attacks will continue to mount:http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679 [infoworld.com]----Bug exposes Cisco switches to attacks:http://news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches+to+attacks/2110-7349\_3-5902897.html?part=rss&amp;tag=5902897&amp;subj=news [cnet.com]&amp;CISCO "COMES CLEAN" ON EXTENT OF IOS FLAW:http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/ [eweek.com]&amp;Cisco PIX and ASA Time-To-Live Denial of Service Vulnerability:http://secunia.com/advisories/28625/ [secunia.com]+Computer routers face hijack risk - study:http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html?ref=rss [www.cbc.ca]Slashdot Technology Story | Will Mainstream Media Embrace Adblockers?http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers [slashdot.org]----Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites:http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1432514&amp;cid=30024078 [slashdot.org]====JAVASCRIPT PROBLEMS:Slashdot | Adobe Confirms PDF Zero-Day, Says Kill JavaScript:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1823234 [slashdot.org]----Adobe Flash Zero-Day Attack Underway:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/28/0138247&amp;from=rss [slashdot.org]----JavaScript flaw reported in Adobe Reader (4th or 5th time already, if not more):http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/953 [securityfocus.com]----Another malware pulls an Italian job via JAVASCRIPT:http://blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/ [trendmicro.com]----JavaScript opens doors to browser-based attacks | CNET News.com:http://news.com.com/JavaScript+opens+doors+to+browser-based+attacks/2100-7349\_3-6099891.html?part=rss&amp;tag=6099891&amp;subj=news [com.com]----Mozilla Firefox Javascript Garbage Collector Vulnerability - Advisories - Secuniahttp://secunia.com/advisories/29787/ [secunia.com]----New script outstrips all other drive-by download risks:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script\_menace/ [theregister.co.uk]----Researcher to demonstrate attack code for Intel chips via Javascript:http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036 [infoworld.com]----Researcher: JavaScript Attacks Get Slicker:http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/ [eweek.com]----Rise Of The PDF Exploits:http://www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits [trustedsource.org]----ADOBE NEW FLAW DOES USE JAVASCRIPT PROOF:http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Calendar.20090219 [shadowserver.org]----AJAX Poses Security, Performance Risks:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp [eweek.com]----Web 2.0 Threats and Risks for Financial Services:http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1004&amp;p=1 [net-security.org]http://www.cbronline.com/news/web\_20\_is\_vulnerable\_to\_attack [cbronline.com]----Cross Site Scripting (GOOGLE) and WHY TO TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT:http://www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html [cgisecurity.com]----Why the FBI Director Doesn't Bank Onlinehttp://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/08/0327240 [slashdot.org]====MAJOR ATTACKS (only a small sample) of WHY LAYERED SECURITY IS NEEDEDIs the Botnet Battle Already Lost?http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp [eweek.com]----IT Pros Say They Can't Stop Data Breaches:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD [eweek.com]----Cyber Attacks On US Military Jump Sharply In 2009http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1452358&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;cid=30185742 [slashdot.org]----Bots Found Inside Many Big Companies:http://blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots\_found\_inside\_many\_big\_companies.html [baselinemag.com]----Bot master owns up to 250,000 zombie PCs:http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11495 [securityfocus.com]----Bots surge ahead (2007):http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/466 [securityfocus.com]----Chinese Hackers Hit Commerce Department:http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105227 [informationweek.com]----CIA Admits Cyberattacks Blacked Out Cities:http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901631 [informationweek.com]----Compromised Banks and Investment sites list 2006:http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233921&amp;cid=19035679 [slashdot.org]----Dancho Danchev's Blog - Mind Streams of Information Security Knowledge: Massive IFRAME SEO Poisoning Attack Continuing:http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html [blogspot.com]----Data at Bank of America, Wachovia, others compromised - May.
23, 2005:http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank\_info/index.htm [cnn.com]----Fresh Security Breaches at Los Alamos:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/ [msn.com]----Infected job search sites lead to info theft for 46,000:http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected\_job\_search\_sites\_lead\_to\_info\_theft\_for\_46\_000 [computerworld.com]----New Mega-Botnet Discovered:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/2223214 [slashdot.org]----I think THAT list ought to "enlighten" ANYONE, as to why "layered security" is &amp; has been considered largely to be "THE WAY TO GO", vs. that list above (which is only a SMALL \%-age of what I can come up with in regards to threats online + their causes)... HOSTS files help protect vs. those, on several levels - DO consider their usage!I'd like to also end this, on a little quote from a fav.
film of mine:"My name is Dr. Robert Neville.
I am a survivor living in New York City.
I am broadcasting on all a.m. frequencies. I will be in the south street seaport everyday at midday when the sun is highest in the sky.
If you are out there, if anyone is out there, I can provide food; I can provide shelter; I can provide security -&gt; http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=44b7ce1c3ee460d32e68cb97f2597368&amp;showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com] .
If there's anybody out there, anybody, please... you are not alone.
" - Dr. Robert Neville, I AM LEGEND&amp; that film inspired me to write that guide for securing Windows NT-based OS variants, @ the end of 2007, + for my "New Year's Resolution" for 2008, of "Do the right thing &amp; 'pay it forward'"... &amp;, it works.Here though?Well, I only suggested a SMALL part of that guide here, but a crucial &amp; EFFECTIVE ONE, &amp; mainly because it fits the bill here QUITE specifically &amp; functions globally, instead of just being good for 1 set of apps only (like FF addons are only, unfortunately), &amp; it doesn't eat CPU like those do either OR slow you down (if anything?
They speed you up HUGELY, in addition to securing you too as a bonus)...apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715052</id>
	<title>Can be done right...</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1263145260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome extensions are <i>entirely</i> HTML/CSS/JavaScript, and so are many Chrome pages (the New Tab Page, the Downloads Tab, etc). I'd tag this badsummary, because it's not the <i>idea</i> of Jetpack that's the problem here, it's the implementation. From the first article, which is the only one that seems to be seriously concerned:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I like its power, I dislike its syntax. I \_really\_ dislike its syntax.... images are inline as data URLs because Jetpacks misses offline support and packaging; the HTML element inserted into the statusbar has to be precisely positioned and that will suck depending on the preferred user's font size;</p></div><p>Contrast to Chrome's extension API, which is fairly clean where it isn't strictly what's already available to any webpage. In particular, those two issues are addressed: Chrome extensions are packaged (more or less) as a cryptographically signed zipfile, so you can have separate images, scripts, etc; there are currently very well-defined ways to add a button either to the URL bar or to the browser itself, and when toolstrips were available (I don't think they are anymore), they were exposed as HTML pages with most of the work done for you in predefined CSS, so no absolute positioning (at least not that you have to do yourself).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>integration with native or native-alike (hear xul) UI and cross-platform issues, a major concern</p></div><p>Basically, the article seems to be assuming there are (and will always be) advantages to XUL. To me, the answer to this is not to expose XUL, but to fix/extend the HTML used. In a way, I think Chrome proves that users really don't care that much about the UI looking and feeling "native", but care much more about it being themable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome extensions are entirely HTML/CSS/JavaScript , and so are many Chrome pages ( the New Tab Page , the Downloads Tab , etc ) .
I 'd tag this badsummary , because it 's not the idea of Jetpack that 's the problem here , it 's the implementation .
From the first article , which is the only one that seems to be seriously concerned : I like its power , I dislike its syntax .
I \ _really \ _ dislike its syntax.... images are inline as data URLs because Jetpacks misses offline support and packaging ; the HTML element inserted into the statusbar has to be precisely positioned and that will suck depending on the preferred user 's font size ; Contrast to Chrome 's extension API , which is fairly clean where it is n't strictly what 's already available to any webpage .
In particular , those two issues are addressed : Chrome extensions are packaged ( more or less ) as a cryptographically signed zipfile , so you can have separate images , scripts , etc ; there are currently very well-defined ways to add a button either to the URL bar or to the browser itself , and when toolstrips were available ( I do n't think they are anymore ) , they were exposed as HTML pages with most of the work done for you in predefined CSS , so no absolute positioning ( at least not that you have to do yourself ) .integration with native or native-alike ( hear xul ) UI and cross-platform issues , a major concernBasically , the article seems to be assuming there are ( and will always be ) advantages to XUL .
To me , the answer to this is not to expose XUL , but to fix/extend the HTML used .
In a way , I think Chrome proves that users really do n't care that much about the UI looking and feeling " native " , but care much more about it being themable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome extensions are entirely HTML/CSS/JavaScript, and so are many Chrome pages (the New Tab Page, the Downloads Tab, etc).
I'd tag this badsummary, because it's not the idea of Jetpack that's the problem here, it's the implementation.
From the first article, which is the only one that seems to be seriously concerned:I like its power, I dislike its syntax.
I \_really\_ dislike its syntax.... images are inline as data URLs because Jetpacks misses offline support and packaging; the HTML element inserted into the statusbar has to be precisely positioned and that will suck depending on the preferred user's font size;Contrast to Chrome's extension API, which is fairly clean where it isn't strictly what's already available to any webpage.
In particular, those two issues are addressed: Chrome extensions are packaged (more or less) as a cryptographically signed zipfile, so you can have separate images, scripts, etc; there are currently very well-defined ways to add a button either to the URL bar or to the browser itself, and when toolstrips were available (I don't think they are anymore), they were exposed as HTML pages with most of the work done for you in predefined CSS, so no absolute positioning (at least not that you have to do yourself).integration with native or native-alike (hear xul) UI and cross-platform issues, a major concernBasically, the article seems to be assuming there are (and will always be) advantages to XUL.
To me, the answer to this is not to expose XUL, but to fix/extend the HTML used.
In a way, I think Chrome proves that users really don't care that much about the UI looking and feeling "native", but care much more about it being themable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715828</id>
	<title>Re:TOO MANY LINKS man!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263151980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe he was trying to head off any "citation needed" comments with "RTFS".</p><p>Damned if you do, damned if you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he was trying to head off any " citation needed " comments with " RTFS " .Damned if you do , damned if you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he was trying to head off any "citation needed" comments with "RTFS".Damned if you do, damned if you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30721510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30720076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30722224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30720084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30721704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1529234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30721510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30720084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30721704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716054
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719224
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30719004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30722224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30720076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30716064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30717982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1529234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30714986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30718090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1529234.30715030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
