<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_033238</id>
	<title>Malware Threat Reports Are "Apples and Oranges"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263234660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://aqfl.net/" rel="nofollow">Ant</a> writes <i>"The December malware threat reports are trickling in from vendors &mdash; and <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23613254-Why-AV-vendors-dont-name-malcode-consistently">they all appear to be different</a>. Fortinet, Sunbelt Software, and Kaspersky all published their lists of the most prevalent malware strains for the last month of 2009, but they didn't match up, leading to an admission that users will inevitably be confused by the results. Not only do the various security companies use different names for the threats they identify; they don't even identify the same threats."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ant writes " The December malware threat reports are trickling in from vendors    and they all appear to be different .
Fortinet , Sunbelt Software , and Kaspersky all published their lists of the most prevalent malware strains for the last month of 2009 , but they did n't match up , leading to an admission that users will inevitably be confused by the results .
Not only do the various security companies use different names for the threats they identify ; they do n't even identify the same threats .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ant writes "The December malware threat reports are trickling in from vendors — and they all appear to be different.
Fortinet, Sunbelt Software, and Kaspersky all published their lists of the most prevalent malware strains for the last month of 2009, but they didn't match up, leading to an admission that users will inevitably be confused by the results.
Not only do the various security companies use different names for the threats they identify; they don't even identify the same threats.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720766</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1263200700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6) Vendors appear to put more effort into making their user interface "pop" rather trying to minimize resource usage and system impact. For example, Microsoft antivirus creates a system restore point every time the signatures are updated (once a day). Every time a system restore point is created my system become barely unusable for a couple of minutes. You can't control when it updates the signatures (currently for me it's around 23:20). Which brings me to:</p><p>7) Vendors want to use their own resistant scheduler service rather than using the standard service that has been in MS Windows since Windows 95. More resource waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 ) Vendors appear to put more effort into making their user interface " pop " rather trying to minimize resource usage and system impact .
For example , Microsoft antivirus creates a system restore point every time the signatures are updated ( once a day ) .
Every time a system restore point is created my system become barely unusable for a couple of minutes .
You ca n't control when it updates the signatures ( currently for me it 's around 23 : 20 ) .
Which brings me to : 7 ) Vendors want to use their own resistant scheduler service rather than using the standard service that has been in MS Windows since Windows 95 .
More resource waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6) Vendors appear to put more effort into making their user interface "pop" rather trying to minimize resource usage and system impact.
For example, Microsoft antivirus creates a system restore point every time the signatures are updated (once a day).
Every time a system restore point is created my system become barely unusable for a couple of minutes.
You can't control when it updates the signatures (currently for me it's around 23:20).
Which brings me to:7) Vendors want to use their own resistant scheduler service rather than using the standard service that has been in MS Windows since Windows 95.
More resource waste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721490</id>
	<title>Re:Falsies (I've been a victim of this &amp; other</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263212940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello APK...</p><p>I'm sure you are aware, big vendors don't like small independent developers... They threaten to upset the applecart, offering superior software for a better price (often free)...</p><p>Big vendors want to rest on their laurels and give their shovelware a new coat of paint every year and sell more overpriced copies. They like the status quo, being able to make minor changes and infinite copies to sell for ridiculous prices.</p><p>Naturally, the software market should have extremely low barriers for entry, resulting in a huge amount of competition forcing prices down and quality up. In reality, you have a few big companies and cartels keeping the market artificially immature so they can continue to rip people off.</p><p>The software market as it stands now looks like it's still in the early adopters phase, with prices kept unrealistically high and no dominant standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello APK...I 'm sure you are aware , big vendors do n't like small independent developers... They threaten to upset the applecart , offering superior software for a better price ( often free ) ...Big vendors want to rest on their laurels and give their shovelware a new coat of paint every year and sell more overpriced copies .
They like the status quo , being able to make minor changes and infinite copies to sell for ridiculous prices.Naturally , the software market should have extremely low barriers for entry , resulting in a huge amount of competition forcing prices down and quality up .
In reality , you have a few big companies and cartels keeping the market artificially immature so they can continue to rip people off.The software market as it stands now looks like it 's still in the early adopters phase , with prices kept unrealistically high and no dominant standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello APK...I'm sure you are aware, big vendors don't like small independent developers... They threaten to upset the applecart, offering superior software for a better price (often free)...Big vendors want to rest on their laurels and give their shovelware a new coat of paint every year and sell more overpriced copies.
They like the status quo, being able to make minor changes and infinite copies to sell for ridiculous prices.Naturally, the software market should have extremely low barriers for entry, resulting in a huge amount of competition forcing prices down and quality up.
In reality, you have a few big companies and cartels keeping the market artificially immature so they can continue to rip people off.The software market as it stands now looks like it's still in the early adopters phase, with prices kept unrealistically high and no dominant standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30724824</id>
	<title>Me too.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1263233340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pay $24.95 a month in antivirus updates for my $449.98 netbook.  I do a deep scan one day a month just to be on the safe side and I manage to keep infections down in the double digits.  But what else can I do?  Macs are too expensive and Linux just requires too much time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay $ 24.95 a month in antivirus updates for my $ 449.98 netbook .
I do a deep scan one day a month just to be on the safe side and I manage to keep infections down in the double digits .
But what else can I do ?
Macs are too expensive and Linux just requires too much time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay $24.95 a month in antivirus updates for my $449.98 netbook.
I do a deep scan one day a month just to be on the safe side and I manage to keep infections down in the double digits.
But what else can I do?
Macs are too expensive and Linux just requires too much time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30722792</id>
	<title>Re:Running multiple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263223620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SpyBot and Malwarebytes aren't active scanners though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SpyBot and Malwarebytes are n't active scanners though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SpyBot and Malwarebytes aren't active scanners though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30722000</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>rHBa</author>
	<datestamp>1263219720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree 100\% although I think the biggest factors were that you are an 'educated' internet users and (presumably, as you were using Adblock) you didn't use IE (Same applies to Outlook of course).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % although I think the biggest factors were that you are an 'educated ' internet users and ( presumably , as you were using Adblock ) you did n't use IE ( Same applies to Outlook of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\% although I think the biggest factors were that you are an 'educated' internet users and (presumably, as you were using Adblock) you didn't use IE (Same applies to Outlook of course).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594</id>
	<title>Running multiple products</title>
	<author>DodgeRules</author>
	<datestamp>1263241200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not only do the various security companies use different names for the threats they identify; they don't even identify the same threats.</p></div></blockquote><p>
This is why I have to run 6 different scanners: because there isn't one that detects all the threats.  I currently run 2 antivirus programs along with SpyBot, SuperAntiSpyware, Windows Defender, and Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only do the various security companies use different names for the threats they identify ; they do n't even identify the same threats .
This is why I have to run 6 different scanners : because there is n't one that detects all the threats .
I currently run 2 antivirus programs along with SpyBot , SuperAntiSpyware , Windows Defender , and Malwarebyte 's Anti-Malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only do the various security companies use different names for the threats they identify; they don't even identify the same threats.
This is why I have to run 6 different scanners: because there isn't one that detects all the threats.
I currently run 2 antivirus programs along with SpyBot, SuperAntiSpyware, Windows Defender, and Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720984</id>
	<title>Re:Running multiple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263204600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get an iPhone. Seriously. Requiring signed and approved applications along with a mechanism to withdraw applications is the only feasible way I can see to somewhat secure a computer. Plus, http and smtp must die, instead requiring https and some better mail protocol with encryption and signatures.</p><p>Certificates should be issued by government, by the way. Preferably at a cost that will cover a reasonable identification procedure for the certificate holder. And I realize this raises a lot of issues with regards to authoritarian regimes. Sorry, but that's the only way we'll get this beast under control. We'll have to accept these limitations, and do our best to put checks and balances to increase transparency in the processes. This is our infrastructure. And anarchy has failed, like it always has: The bad guys get the edge when there are not enough restrictions/not enough enforcement of the restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get an iPhone .
Seriously. Requiring signed and approved applications along with a mechanism to withdraw applications is the only feasible way I can see to somewhat secure a computer .
Plus , http and smtp must die , instead requiring https and some better mail protocol with encryption and signatures.Certificates should be issued by government , by the way .
Preferably at a cost that will cover a reasonable identification procedure for the certificate holder .
And I realize this raises a lot of issues with regards to authoritarian regimes .
Sorry , but that 's the only way we 'll get this beast under control .
We 'll have to accept these limitations , and do our best to put checks and balances to increase transparency in the processes .
This is our infrastructure .
And anarchy has failed , like it always has : The bad guys get the edge when there are not enough restrictions/not enough enforcement of the restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get an iPhone.
Seriously. Requiring signed and approved applications along with a mechanism to withdraw applications is the only feasible way I can see to somewhat secure a computer.
Plus, http and smtp must die, instead requiring https and some better mail protocol with encryption and signatures.Certificates should be issued by government, by the way.
Preferably at a cost that will cover a reasonable identification procedure for the certificate holder.
And I realize this raises a lot of issues with regards to authoritarian regimes.
Sorry, but that's the only way we'll get this beast under control.
We'll have to accept these limitations, and do our best to put checks and balances to increase transparency in the processes.
This is our infrastructure.
And anarchy has failed, like it always has: The bad guys get the edge when there are not enough restrictions/not enough enforcement of the restrictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30727014</id>
	<title>Re:I'm just bragging</title>
	<author>pnice</author>
	<datestamp>1263242160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't come off as impressive when you throw all 28 years of your computing experience into your brag.  I don't think malware was prevalent when people were coding with punch cards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't come off as impressive when you throw all 28 years of your computing experience into your brag .
I do n't think malware was prevalent when people were coding with punch cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't come off as impressive when you throw all 28 years of your computing experience into your brag.
I don't think malware was prevalent when people were coding with punch cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</id>
	<title>Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263240660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone's always touting the benefits of competition, but here's a clear example of competition serving to confuse the market. There are a number of problems:</p><p>1) Antivirus solutions do not co-exist - and not just the resident portion. I'd love to run a second or 3rd scanner like I can for spyware but Antivirus vendors have created a market that is use to the worst kind of lock in. Why can't I run 3 different products side by side and decide which one's resident scanner I want switched on? I'm sure there are technical issue but I'm also sure they're not insurmountable.</p><p>2) Antivirus vendors are now trying to police what you can and can't do. Look at the numerous reports of false positives for programs that are legally grey (or black) but aren't viruses. I've personally had network tools come up as false positives and it's a pain to unquarantine and exclude them so they don't quarantine themselves again.</p><p>3) The main form of collusion between vendors seems to be fitting into Microsoft frameworks so they show up as antivirus software in the appropriate control panel and so you don't get warnings about invalid or out of date antivirus. But this in itself makes them more vulnerable to attack</p><p>4) The products are often so badly written that they cause as many problems as they solve. A bad update here or there can (and has in the past) caused irrevocable system damage that has required a reinstall or restore from backup for users. What's the point of an antivirus that does this. Worse I've seen much subtler performance problems from minor antivirus updates - in one case it brought a company I worked for's client's machines to their knees and initially they blamed us. Turns out a change in the engine meant very big files were being opened and re-scanned for every write. Needless to say it wasn't out fault.</p><p>5) Every vendor seems to have their own names for a virus. For pity sake can we have some kind of standard naming mechanism?</p><p>Isn't competition suppose to improve such things and open up the market? In this case it just hasn't happened. There has been implicit collusion but not of the right sort to improve or provide a diverse range of products. There's not one product that will protect you well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone 's always touting the benefits of competition , but here 's a clear example of competition serving to confuse the market .
There are a number of problems : 1 ) Antivirus solutions do not co-exist - and not just the resident portion .
I 'd love to run a second or 3rd scanner like I can for spyware but Antivirus vendors have created a market that is use to the worst kind of lock in .
Why ca n't I run 3 different products side by side and decide which one 's resident scanner I want switched on ?
I 'm sure there are technical issue but I 'm also sure they 're not insurmountable.2 ) Antivirus vendors are now trying to police what you can and ca n't do .
Look at the numerous reports of false positives for programs that are legally grey ( or black ) but are n't viruses .
I 've personally had network tools come up as false positives and it 's a pain to unquarantine and exclude them so they do n't quarantine themselves again.3 ) The main form of collusion between vendors seems to be fitting into Microsoft frameworks so they show up as antivirus software in the appropriate control panel and so you do n't get warnings about invalid or out of date antivirus .
But this in itself makes them more vulnerable to attack4 ) The products are often so badly written that they cause as many problems as they solve .
A bad update here or there can ( and has in the past ) caused irrevocable system damage that has required a reinstall or restore from backup for users .
What 's the point of an antivirus that does this .
Worse I 've seen much subtler performance problems from minor antivirus updates - in one case it brought a company I worked for 's client 's machines to their knees and initially they blamed us .
Turns out a change in the engine meant very big files were being opened and re-scanned for every write .
Needless to say it was n't out fault.5 ) Every vendor seems to have their own names for a virus .
For pity sake can we have some kind of standard naming mechanism ? Is n't competition suppose to improve such things and open up the market ?
In this case it just has n't happened .
There has been implicit collusion but not of the right sort to improve or provide a diverse range of products .
There 's not one product that will protect you well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone's always touting the benefits of competition, but here's a clear example of competition serving to confuse the market.
There are a number of problems:1) Antivirus solutions do not co-exist - and not just the resident portion.
I'd love to run a second or 3rd scanner like I can for spyware but Antivirus vendors have created a market that is use to the worst kind of lock in.
Why can't I run 3 different products side by side and decide which one's resident scanner I want switched on?
I'm sure there are technical issue but I'm also sure they're not insurmountable.2) Antivirus vendors are now trying to police what you can and can't do.
Look at the numerous reports of false positives for programs that are legally grey (or black) but aren't viruses.
I've personally had network tools come up as false positives and it's a pain to unquarantine and exclude them so they don't quarantine themselves again.3) The main form of collusion between vendors seems to be fitting into Microsoft frameworks so they show up as antivirus software in the appropriate control panel and so you don't get warnings about invalid or out of date antivirus.
But this in itself makes them more vulnerable to attack4) The products are often so badly written that they cause as many problems as they solve.
A bad update here or there can (and has in the past) caused irrevocable system damage that has required a reinstall or restore from backup for users.
What's the point of an antivirus that does this.
Worse I've seen much subtler performance problems from minor antivirus updates - in one case it brought a company I worked for's client's machines to their knees and initially they blamed us.
Turns out a change in the engine meant very big files were being opened and re-scanned for every write.
Needless to say it wasn't out fault.5) Every vendor seems to have their own names for a virus.
For pity sake can we have some kind of standard naming mechanism?Isn't competition suppose to improve such things and open up the market?
In this case it just hasn't happened.
There has been implicit collusion but not of the right sort to improve or provide a diverse range of products.
There's not one product that will protect you well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720728</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1263243360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Everyone's always touting the benefits of competition, but here's a clear example of competition serving to confuse the market. </i>
<p>
No, this is a clear example of a monopoly creating a market repairing broken Windows. That's why it seems confusing.
</p><p>
Consumers shouldn't be facing a choice of ineffective bandaids to patch over their computers' inability to keep malware out. They should be able to choose a computer/OS that is inherently resistant.
</p><p>

For computer users, this is a Red Queen's race, and Windows users have to keep paying and stay vigilant just to retain a semblance of control of their own machines. The real solution is to mandate open formats, APIs, and protocols, then let any OS vendor compete on level terms. When consumers can select an OS that suits them, including the level of security they wish to pay for, we will have competition. Only then will OS vendors have to improve their products to retain customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone 's always touting the benefits of competition , but here 's a clear example of competition serving to confuse the market .
No , this is a clear example of a monopoly creating a market repairing broken Windows .
That 's why it seems confusing .
Consumers should n't be facing a choice of ineffective bandaids to patch over their computers ' inability to keep malware out .
They should be able to choose a computer/OS that is inherently resistant .
For computer users , this is a Red Queen 's race , and Windows users have to keep paying and stay vigilant just to retain a semblance of control of their own machines .
The real solution is to mandate open formats , APIs , and protocols , then let any OS vendor compete on level terms .
When consumers can select an OS that suits them , including the level of security they wish to pay for , we will have competition .
Only then will OS vendors have to improve their products to retain customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone's always touting the benefits of competition, but here's a clear example of competition serving to confuse the market.
No, this is a clear example of a monopoly creating a market repairing broken Windows.
That's why it seems confusing.
Consumers shouldn't be facing a choice of ineffective bandaids to patch over their computers' inability to keep malware out.
They should be able to choose a computer/OS that is inherently resistant.
For computer users, this is a Red Queen's race, and Windows users have to keep paying and stay vigilant just to retain a semblance of control of their own machines.
The real solution is to mandate open formats, APIs, and protocols, then let any OS vendor compete on level terms.
When consumers can select an OS that suits them, including the level of security they wish to pay for, we will have competition.
Only then will OS vendors have to improve their products to retain customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721452</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1263212460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a self-sustaining monopoly out there. How can you tell about some abstract choice if for a majority of people PC=Windows? And you can't really blame people here: all they see is Windows, on every shell in every computer store. Exclusive per-CPU deals led to a situation where OEM's pay the same to Microsoft no matter how many OS's they offer, so they usually offer one because it's cheaper that way.<br>What choice do consumers really have if they don't know about Linux? Windows vs. overpriced Apple computers? Even so, Mac OS share grew up somewhat sharply last few years.</p><p>You have a hard time finding a PC that comes with Linux so you end up installing the OS yourself. Then there's this proprietary formats and protocols issue artificially created to ensure Microsoft's lock-in. Then you have some hardware vendors who decide to support Windows only and who don't use standard implementations.</p><p>None of those issues speak about the quality of operating systems, but you have to clear those monopoly-made hurdles in order to enjoy vastly improved security, better software management and more comfortable interface of Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a self-sustaining monopoly out there .
How can you tell about some abstract choice if for a majority of people PC = Windows ?
And you ca n't really blame people here : all they see is Windows , on every shell in every computer store .
Exclusive per-CPU deals led to a situation where OEM 's pay the same to Microsoft no matter how many OS 's they offer , so they usually offer one because it 's cheaper that way.What choice do consumers really have if they do n't know about Linux ?
Windows vs. overpriced Apple computers ?
Even so , Mac OS share grew up somewhat sharply last few years.You have a hard time finding a PC that comes with Linux so you end up installing the OS yourself .
Then there 's this proprietary formats and protocols issue artificially created to ensure Microsoft 's lock-in .
Then you have some hardware vendors who decide to support Windows only and who do n't use standard implementations.None of those issues speak about the quality of operating systems , but you have to clear those monopoly-made hurdles in order to enjoy vastly improved security , better software management and more comfortable interface of Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a self-sustaining monopoly out there.
How can you tell about some abstract choice if for a majority of people PC=Windows?
And you can't really blame people here: all they see is Windows, on every shell in every computer store.
Exclusive per-CPU deals led to a situation where OEM's pay the same to Microsoft no matter how many OS's they offer, so they usually offer one because it's cheaper that way.What choice do consumers really have if they don't know about Linux?
Windows vs. overpriced Apple computers?
Even so, Mac OS share grew up somewhat sharply last few years.You have a hard time finding a PC that comes with Linux so you end up installing the OS yourself.
Then there's this proprietary formats and protocols issue artificially created to ensure Microsoft's lock-in.
Then you have some hardware vendors who decide to support Windows only and who don't use standard implementations.None of those issues speak about the quality of operating systems, but you have to clear those monopoly-made hurdles in order to enjoy vastly improved security, better software management and more comfortable interface of Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721566</id>
	<title>Re:Running multiple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263213720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a totalitarian level of control that would have many other unintended consequences...</p><p>What i would advocate instead, is that users be required to pass a test before they are allowed to connect a general purpose computer to the internet, like a driving test.</p><p>Without passing such a test, you should only be permitted to connect a "managed" device to the internet, that is a machine where someone else controls it and you only have extremely limited access to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a totalitarian level of control that would have many other unintended consequences...What i would advocate instead , is that users be required to pass a test before they are allowed to connect a general purpose computer to the internet , like a driving test.Without passing such a test , you should only be permitted to connect a " managed " device to the internet , that is a machine where someone else controls it and you only have extremely limited access to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a totalitarian level of control that would have many other unintended consequences...What i would advocate instead, is that users be required to pass a test before they are allowed to connect a general purpose computer to the internet, like a driving test.Without passing such a test, you should only be permitted to connect a "managed" device to the internet, that is a machine where someone else controls it and you only have extremely limited access to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721132</id>
	<title>Re:I'm just bragging</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263207060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean "zero detected instances".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean " zero detected instances " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean "zero detected instances".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30726060</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1263238620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>No, this is a clear example of a monopoly creating a market repairing broken Windows. That's why it seems confusing.</i> <br> <br>Irrelevant.  That there's a monopoly on the OS doesn't have anything to do with the software that runs on it.  We had a monopoly of petrol cars in the US for the longest time.  Sure, that meant that the diesel Mercedes didn't sell here, but the competition between the petrol car makers was real.  And that competition worked the way it was supposed to.<br> <br>But antivirus makers not naming things the same would be the same issue if the viruses were written for Linux or any other OS.  Their requirement to lock in to the OS at the kernel level in order to protect at that same level (assumes viruses have root, which is a separate debate) would be the same, and so that means that updates would have the same capacity for killing the OS.  If you don't set them at a high priority, your computer will be sluggish because every scan before you do something will take longer. But if you set them at high priority, any errors in the program will be elevated above everything else, making the computer slower.<br> <br>These problems don't go away on other platforms.  And other platforms are vulnerable to viruses, even if only if systems are unpatched and users run as root (which if you think won't happen would be a separate debate, but it's obviously the norm today).<br> <br>So you blame a monopoly for the results of bad software when the problem looks to me to be the same even if it were run on non-monopoly software.  I just don't see how Windows caused AV software to be bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is a clear example of a monopoly creating a market repairing broken Windows .
That 's why it seems confusing .
Irrelevant. That there 's a monopoly on the OS does n't have anything to do with the software that runs on it .
We had a monopoly of petrol cars in the US for the longest time .
Sure , that meant that the diesel Mercedes did n't sell here , but the competition between the petrol car makers was real .
And that competition worked the way it was supposed to .
But antivirus makers not naming things the same would be the same issue if the viruses were written for Linux or any other OS .
Their requirement to lock in to the OS at the kernel level in order to protect at that same level ( assumes viruses have root , which is a separate debate ) would be the same , and so that means that updates would have the same capacity for killing the OS .
If you do n't set them at a high priority , your computer will be sluggish because every scan before you do something will take longer .
But if you set them at high priority , any errors in the program will be elevated above everything else , making the computer slower .
These problems do n't go away on other platforms .
And other platforms are vulnerable to viruses , even if only if systems are unpatched and users run as root ( which if you think wo n't happen would be a separate debate , but it 's obviously the norm today ) .
So you blame a monopoly for the results of bad software when the problem looks to me to be the same even if it were run on non-monopoly software .
I just do n't see how Windows caused AV software to be bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is a clear example of a monopoly creating a market repairing broken Windows.
That's why it seems confusing.
Irrelevant.  That there's a monopoly on the OS doesn't have anything to do with the software that runs on it.
We had a monopoly of petrol cars in the US for the longest time.
Sure, that meant that the diesel Mercedes didn't sell here, but the competition between the petrol car makers was real.
And that competition worked the way it was supposed to.
But antivirus makers not naming things the same would be the same issue if the viruses were written for Linux or any other OS.
Their requirement to lock in to the OS at the kernel level in order to protect at that same level (assumes viruses have root, which is a separate debate) would be the same, and so that means that updates would have the same capacity for killing the OS.
If you don't set them at a high priority, your computer will be sluggish because every scan before you do something will take longer.
But if you set them at high priority, any errors in the program will be elevated above everything else, making the computer slower.
These problems don't go away on other platforms.
And other platforms are vulnerable to viruses, even if only if systems are unpatched and users run as root (which if you think won't happen would be a separate debate, but it's obviously the norm today).
So you blame a monopoly for the results of bad software when the problem looks to me to be the same even if it were run on non-monopoly software.
I just don't see how Windows caused AV software to be bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721562</id>
	<title>Re:Running multiple products</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1263213660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Six scanners?! You can't be  serious...</p><p>If that's true you either REALLY need Windows or are plain masochistic. I don't use Windows for years now, but I still remember how a scanner trashes the hard disk and slow the whole system beyond acceptable for some hours. With six scanners it would take a whole day to run them through your disk once.</p><p>Thanks but no, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Six scanners ? !
You ca n't be serious...If that 's true you either REALLY need Windows or are plain masochistic .
I do n't use Windows for years now , but I still remember how a scanner trashes the hard disk and slow the whole system beyond acceptable for some hours .
With six scanners it would take a whole day to run them through your disk once.Thanks but no , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Six scanners?!
You can't be  serious...If that's true you either REALLY need Windows or are plain masochistic.
I don't use Windows for years now, but I still remember how a scanner trashes the hard disk and slow the whole system beyond acceptable for some hours.
With six scanners it would take a whole day to run them through your disk once.Thanks but no, thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720672</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing the reason you can't use multiple resident scanners is that just one will bring your system to a crawl. I don't even want to touch a computer with Norton + McAfee. Back when I used Windows my solution was to have adblock, spybot, AVG and Clamwin and then just scan any programs I downloaded (along with not downloading seedy looking programs). It worked pretty well. If I did have any viruses, none of them were noticable (and my monthly+ scans never picked anything up). I think the need for constantly running virus scanners is seriously overstated, at least for people who know not to run HorseSex.exe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing the reason you ca n't use multiple resident scanners is that just one will bring your system to a crawl .
I do n't even want to touch a computer with Norton + McAfee .
Back when I used Windows my solution was to have adblock , spybot , AVG and Clamwin and then just scan any programs I downloaded ( along with not downloading seedy looking programs ) .
It worked pretty well .
If I did have any viruses , none of them were noticable ( and my monthly + scans never picked anything up ) .
I think the need for constantly running virus scanners is seriously overstated , at least for people who know not to run HorseSex.exe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing the reason you can't use multiple resident scanners is that just one will bring your system to a crawl.
I don't even want to touch a computer with Norton + McAfee.
Back when I used Windows my solution was to have adblock, spybot, AVG and Clamwin and then just scan any programs I downloaded (along with not downloading seedy looking programs).
It worked pretty well.
If I did have any viruses, none of them were noticable (and my monthly+ scans never picked anything up).
I think the need for constantly running virus scanners is seriously overstated, at least for people who know not to run HorseSex.exe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30725144</id>
	<title>speaking of worms...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263234480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anyone know what hits port 24477 ?? i get whacked on that port on a daily basis (tcp/udp) and have no clue what worm would use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone know what hits port 24477 ? ?
i get whacked on that port on a daily basis ( tcp/udp ) and have no clue what worm would use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone know what hits port 24477 ??
i get whacked on that port on a daily basis (tcp/udp) and have no clue what worm would use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30732644</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263225300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note: posting Anonymously because I work on the scanner for an anti-virus product.</p><p>Because of the way they work, running more than one real-time scanner at the same time is also a bad idea because they will each interfere with what the other scanner is doing. Both are going to be running a fairly low-level process which is touching lots of files, potentially moving things around, denying access to processes etc. If they both scan something and decide it's malware they can fight over who gets to quarantine or modify it. Heuristic scanners can also sometimes be tricked into thinking that another scanner is malware simply because of what it is doing. The way that a lot of AV scanners store their detections can mean that there are 'bad' strings or byte sequences in their data, and a resident memory scanner can actually potentially detect this too.</p><p>Unfortunately there are a lot of ways that a machine can be infected without you running anything at all. Flash, for example, is notorious for having a lot of exploits which can compromise your machine and allow malware to run without you doing anything. Additionally there is a lot of malware that can spread over a network. Last year's Conficker outbreak is a good example. It could spread over a windows network, brute-forcing weak passwords or simply exploiting an unpatched vulerability and stealthily installing itself. Your only real way of knowing it was there was that you would suddenly lose access to certain websites, eg Windows Update. While <i>you</i> may be smart enough not to run HorseSex.exe, it doesn't mean that a family member or co-worker with access to your home/work network is also that smart.</p><p>A light-weight realtime scanner is a good idea. I wouldn't personally use one of the bigger ones because they tend to be resource hogs, but there are pretty reasonable products out there that don't consume your whole machine. If you don't run a realtime scanner, you're flirting with fate unless you are extremely diligent (eg Firefox instead of IE, flashblock, use noscript and only whitelist what you know is safe, strong windows password, run windows update every tuesday, keep all your software patched, and make sure anyone accessing your network is just as diligent).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note : posting Anonymously because I work on the scanner for an anti-virus product.Because of the way they work , running more than one real-time scanner at the same time is also a bad idea because they will each interfere with what the other scanner is doing .
Both are going to be running a fairly low-level process which is touching lots of files , potentially moving things around , denying access to processes etc .
If they both scan something and decide it 's malware they can fight over who gets to quarantine or modify it .
Heuristic scanners can also sometimes be tricked into thinking that another scanner is malware simply because of what it is doing .
The way that a lot of AV scanners store their detections can mean that there are 'bad ' strings or byte sequences in their data , and a resident memory scanner can actually potentially detect this too.Unfortunately there are a lot of ways that a machine can be infected without you running anything at all .
Flash , for example , is notorious for having a lot of exploits which can compromise your machine and allow malware to run without you doing anything .
Additionally there is a lot of malware that can spread over a network .
Last year 's Conficker outbreak is a good example .
It could spread over a windows network , brute-forcing weak passwords or simply exploiting an unpatched vulerability and stealthily installing itself .
Your only real way of knowing it was there was that you would suddenly lose access to certain websites , eg Windows Update .
While you may be smart enough not to run HorseSex.exe , it does n't mean that a family member or co-worker with access to your home/work network is also that smart.A light-weight realtime scanner is a good idea .
I would n't personally use one of the bigger ones because they tend to be resource hogs , but there are pretty reasonable products out there that do n't consume your whole machine .
If you do n't run a realtime scanner , you 're flirting with fate unless you are extremely diligent ( eg Firefox instead of IE , flashblock , use noscript and only whitelist what you know is safe , strong windows password , run windows update every tuesday , keep all your software patched , and make sure anyone accessing your network is just as diligent ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note: posting Anonymously because I work on the scanner for an anti-virus product.Because of the way they work, running more than one real-time scanner at the same time is also a bad idea because they will each interfere with what the other scanner is doing.
Both are going to be running a fairly low-level process which is touching lots of files, potentially moving things around, denying access to processes etc.
If they both scan something and decide it's malware they can fight over who gets to quarantine or modify it.
Heuristic scanners can also sometimes be tricked into thinking that another scanner is malware simply because of what it is doing.
The way that a lot of AV scanners store their detections can mean that there are 'bad' strings or byte sequences in their data, and a resident memory scanner can actually potentially detect this too.Unfortunately there are a lot of ways that a machine can be infected without you running anything at all.
Flash, for example, is notorious for having a lot of exploits which can compromise your machine and allow malware to run without you doing anything.
Additionally there is a lot of malware that can spread over a network.
Last year's Conficker outbreak is a good example.
It could spread over a windows network, brute-forcing weak passwords or simply exploiting an unpatched vulerability and stealthily installing itself.
Your only real way of knowing it was there was that you would suddenly lose access to certain websites, eg Windows Update.
While you may be smart enough not to run HorseSex.exe, it doesn't mean that a family member or co-worker with access to your home/work network is also that smart.A light-weight realtime scanner is a good idea.
I wouldn't personally use one of the bigger ones because they tend to be resource hogs, but there are pretty reasonable products out there that don't consume your whole machine.
If you don't run a realtime scanner, you're flirting with fate unless you are extremely diligent (eg Firefox instead of IE, flashblock, use noscript and only whitelist what you know is safe, strong windows password, run windows update every tuesday, keep all your software patched, and make sure anyone accessing your network is just as diligent).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720804</id>
	<title>Falsies (I've been a victim of this &amp; others t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"2) Antivirus vendors are now trying to police what you can and can't do. Look at the numerous reports of false positives for programs that are legally grey (or black) but aren't viruses. I've personally had network tools come up as false positives and it's a pain to unquarantine and exclude them so they don't quarantine themselves again."</b> - by syousef (465911) on Monday January 11, @02:11AM (#30720570)</p></div><p>This I totally agree with you on, &amp; I myself have been a victim of it as a freeware developer!</p><p>E.G.-&gt; I wrote an application back in 1999 that is "flagged" by CA as a threat, <b>albeit with "ZERO THREAT LEVELS"</b>, listing it claiming it can be used by malware authors to do damage to others... wtf?</p><p><b>So, upon the advisement of an attorney, I took their 21 point test</b> (via vendorappeals@ca.com &amp; writing greg.jensen@ca.com also in regards to this)<b>, &amp; my application did not violate a SINGLE CONSTRAINT, &amp; yet? They STILL list it on their website...</b> - this was prior to ANY RULING that antivirus/antispyware companies can now do so (funny that, eh?)!!!</p><p>(Boy - it's rather 'funny' how the "rules change" for big money, eh? Especially when you catch their "so called software engineers" constradicting their own rules for removal from their lists).</p><p>I am not alone in this either, by the by:</p><p>----</p><p><b>E.G. #1 - Dr. Mark Russinovich has had this happen with his utilities as well</b></p><p><b>E.G. #2 - Nir Sofer of Nirsoft has also... </b></p><p>----</p><p>In fact, I had a large discussion with Nir about this in fact, via email, &amp; he does a blog on it...</p><p>(Does it change anything? Nope!)</p><p>NOW, my app, ALL it does? Is allow a user to launch ANY APP HE WANTS, invisibly. I designed it @ the request of a user on a forums to help him out, back when Apache for Windows did not have a resident background service running (like most webservers do on Windows), or @ least that was his problem he told me.</p><p>So, since it was VERY EASY TO CREATE, &amp; at the request of a fellow forums member, to help he out, I did so.</p><p>(I.E.-&gt; It is a simple app, &amp; it uses 1 line of code to do so (i.e.-&gt; most shell/spawn commands in various compilers have parameters to do this in many compilers), so I "whipped it up" for him, as he requested needing such a tool - just to help out a fellow forums poster whom I had known for years no less online @ NTCompatible.com... )).</p><p><b>Next thing I know? My app is listed by CA + this fool named Thor Schrock as a malware!</b></p><p>(&amp; others also, but, they removed it once I requested it and showed them that I am ANYTHING BUT a 'malware author', per guides I have been doing for decades like this one -&gt; <a href="http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=9dacda674c6b55f869c4db3d5b0cc0df&amp;showtopic=2662" title="tcmagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=9dacda674c6b55f869c4db3d5b0cc0df&amp;showtopic=2662</a> [tcmagazine.com] that owns the top spot on GOOGLE when you search "HOW TO SECURE WINDOWS 2000/XP" and the top 50 or so after that. It has gone WELL over 250,000 views online in 2 yrs. time across 15 forums and also has been rated "5/5 stars", or is in their top 5 most viewed on tech forums sections, or was made a "sticky/pinned thread" or "essential guide" no less! My guide helps Windows uses secure their systems in fact!)</p><p><b>I have YET to have my single app</b> (APKApp2BackGroundDaemonProcessEngine.exe) <b>be removed from CA's or this fool "Thor Schrock's" listings, even though I did not violate a SINGLE constraint of CA's removal request document's constraints... </b></p><p>These people victimize smaller developers who are NOT "malware authors" because they know what it costs with attorneys to attack them... so, they get away with it.</p><p>I was told in fact, by an attorney out of Rochester N.Y. who handles such things I had a winning case, but he told me it was not worth it ($150,000 award roughly possible), because he said these companies would drag him through the courts for 10++ yrs., &amp; that would make his expenses EXCEED THAT AWARD AMOUNT... he told me this is HOW they operate &amp; victimize smaller devs like Nir &amp; myself (and, get away with it too, because of this "red tape" b.s.).</p><p>That was 2-3 YEARS AGO now, no less!</p><p>They also listed it for YEARS (since 2004) under my MIDDLE NAME + LAST NAME ONLY, not my first name included in there (thus, I would never find it by say, searching GOOGLE for my full name... I only stumbled on it by accident one day searching google for where apps I had written had ended up over the years).</p><p>I also asked this "Thor Schrock" character (who posts on CA's forums, funny that eh?) where he got his information, &amp; he would NOT divulge it... in fact, I think it is HE who did this to myself because of his lack of letting me know this information. I consider it libelling myself. He is by NO MEANS a computer guru, &amp; doesn't even have a degree in the art &amp; science of computing afaik either... nor did he perform a disassembly or formal analysis of my ware either.</p><p>In fact, I even later asked BOTH PARTIES, why this is so, even approaching Greg Jensen on it by phone and email as noted above earlier here by myself (he is head of CA's development on their "security suite" (which a company I worked for was using &amp; sells, but even THEY removed it from their network because it was tearing up valid emails from customers &amp; partners)...</p><p>Result? No answers &amp; even a threat that I not call he again. I only did so, once.</p><p>I later asked them if they list PING (because it can issue a ping of death or it could in the past @ least)... they do not.</p><p>One of their constraints also is IF an app alters a HOSTS file (mine in question here I noted above does not), &amp; I asked why they don't list Spybot "Search &amp; Destroy" (because it uses a HOSTS file to protect a user)... again, they do not.</p><p>I.E.-&gt; These companies CONTRADICT THEIR OWN RULES!</p><p>I agree here, with personal reasons, this is a valid problem you note, in "false positives", because even when you do their removal requests and pass their "tests"? They still do NOT remove your app.</p><p>IF this is difficult to believe? Write Nir Sofer of NIRSOFT about it. He will verify my statements here, as doubtless will Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft (many of HIS tools have been removed though, doubtless because he is now an MS employee &amp; Microsoft would sue the LIFE out of CA &amp; others like they, IF they did not remove Dr. Russinovich's tools from their alleged malware lists).</p><p>In fact?</p><p>You've inspired me to contact Mr. Nir Sofer again on this, because he and I have tried to have stories of this nature posted here, albeit to NO avail... perhaps HIS reply here will also bolster your VERY VALID POINTS here also.</p><p>(Thanks for your posting, it is a big help to myself, &amp; others devs who do freewares/sharewares by letting others know what "goes on" from these companies, even when you do their "list removal procedure" forms they have... they still don't remove your wares!)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; </p><div class="quote"><p><b>"I'd love to run a second or 3rd scanner like I can for spyware"</b> - by syousef (465911) on Monday January 11, @02:11AM (#30720570)</p></div><p>Everytime I've tried that, &amp; especially during program installs, it gets the "antispyware" product's "resident scanners" into a "FIGHT" with one another (one will say "you are about to make changes to [insert XYZ here]" and when I tell it to allow it? The other resident spyware program will spit the same error/abend back that the last one did that I told to allow the installation (which, in turn, makes the first one do the error again, infininitum (i.e.-&gt; a real "dog chasing its tail" situation)).</p><p>I am surprised you have never run into that in your running dual (or more) resident antispyware tooltray (+ service, because some use a service also, other antispywares do not, usually depending on which version of Windows it is you use really)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 2 ) Antivirus vendors are now trying to police what you can and ca n't do .
Look at the numerous reports of false positives for programs that are legally grey ( or black ) but are n't viruses .
I 've personally had network tools come up as false positives and it 's a pain to unquarantine and exclude them so they do n't quarantine themselves again .
" - by syousef ( 465911 ) on Monday January 11 , @ 02 : 11AM ( # 30720570 ) This I totally agree with you on , &amp; I myself have been a victim of it as a freeware developer ! E.G.- &gt; I wrote an application back in 1999 that is " flagged " by CA as a threat , albeit with " ZERO THREAT LEVELS " , listing it claiming it can be used by malware authors to do damage to others... wtf ? So , upon the advisement of an attorney , I took their 21 point test ( via vendorappeals @ ca.com &amp; writing greg.jensen @ ca.com also in regards to this ) , &amp; my application did not violate a SINGLE CONSTRAINT , &amp; yet ?
They STILL list it on their website... - this was prior to ANY RULING that antivirus/antispyware companies can now do so ( funny that , eh ? ) ! ! !
( Boy - it 's rather 'funny ' how the " rules change " for big money , eh ?
Especially when you catch their " so called software engineers " constradicting their own rules for removal from their lists ) .I am not alone in this either , by the by : ----E.G .
# 1 - Dr. Mark Russinovich has had this happen with his utilities as wellE.G .
# 2 - Nir Sofer of Nirsoft has also... ----In fact , I had a large discussion with Nir about this in fact , via email , &amp; he does a blog on it... ( Does it change anything ?
Nope ! ) NOW , my app , ALL it does ?
Is allow a user to launch ANY APP HE WANTS , invisibly .
I designed it @ the request of a user on a forums to help him out , back when Apache for Windows did not have a resident background service running ( like most webservers do on Windows ) , or @ least that was his problem he told me.So , since it was VERY EASY TO CREATE , &amp; at the request of a fellow forums member , to help he out , I did so .
( I.E.- &gt; It is a simple app , &amp; it uses 1 line of code to do so ( i.e.- &gt; most shell/spawn commands in various compilers have parameters to do this in many compilers ) , so I " whipped it up " for him , as he requested needing such a tool - just to help out a fellow forums poster whom I had known for years no less online @ NTCompatible.com... ) ) .Next thing I know ?
My app is listed by CA + this fool named Thor Schrock as a malware !
( &amp; others also , but , they removed it once I requested it and showed them that I am ANYTHING BUT a 'malware author ' , per guides I have been doing for decades like this one - &gt; http : //www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php ? s = 9dacda674c6b55f869c4db3d5b0cc0df&amp;showtopic = 2662 [ tcmagazine.com ] that owns the top spot on GOOGLE when you search " HOW TO SECURE WINDOWS 2000/XP " and the top 50 or so after that .
It has gone WELL over 250,000 views online in 2 yrs .
time across 15 forums and also has been rated " 5/5 stars " , or is in their top 5 most viewed on tech forums sections , or was made a " sticky/pinned thread " or " essential guide " no less !
My guide helps Windows uses secure their systems in fact !
) I have YET to have my single app ( APKApp2BackGroundDaemonProcessEngine.exe ) be removed from CA 's or this fool " Thor Schrock 's " listings , even though I did not violate a SINGLE constraint of CA 's removal request document 's constraints... These people victimize smaller developers who are NOT " malware authors " because they know what it costs with attorneys to attack them... so , they get away with it.I was told in fact , by an attorney out of Rochester N.Y. who handles such things I had a winning case , but he told me it was not worth it ( $ 150,000 award roughly possible ) , because he said these companies would drag him through the courts for 10 + + yrs. , &amp; that would make his expenses EXCEED THAT AWARD AMOUNT... he told me this is HOW they operate &amp; victimize smaller devs like Nir &amp; myself ( and , get away with it too , because of this " red tape " b.s .
) .That was 2-3 YEARS AGO now , no less ! They also listed it for YEARS ( since 2004 ) under my MIDDLE NAME + LAST NAME ONLY , not my first name included in there ( thus , I would never find it by say , searching GOOGLE for my full name... I only stumbled on it by accident one day searching google for where apps I had written had ended up over the years ) .I also asked this " Thor Schrock " character ( who posts on CA 's forums , funny that eh ?
) where he got his information , &amp; he would NOT divulge it... in fact , I think it is HE who did this to myself because of his lack of letting me know this information .
I consider it libelling myself .
He is by NO MEANS a computer guru , &amp; does n't even have a degree in the art &amp; science of computing afaik either... nor did he perform a disassembly or formal analysis of my ware either.In fact , I even later asked BOTH PARTIES , why this is so , even approaching Greg Jensen on it by phone and email as noted above earlier here by myself ( he is head of CA 's development on their " security suite " ( which a company I worked for was using &amp; sells , but even THEY removed it from their network because it was tearing up valid emails from customers &amp; partners ) ...Result ?
No answers &amp; even a threat that I not call he again .
I only did so , once.I later asked them if they list PING ( because it can issue a ping of death or it could in the past @ least ) ... they do not.One of their constraints also is IF an app alters a HOSTS file ( mine in question here I noted above does not ) , &amp; I asked why they do n't list Spybot " Search &amp; Destroy " ( because it uses a HOSTS file to protect a user ) ... again , they do not.I.E.- &gt; These companies CONTRADICT THEIR OWN RULES ! I agree here , with personal reasons , this is a valid problem you note , in " false positives " , because even when you do their removal requests and pass their " tests " ?
They still do NOT remove your app.IF this is difficult to believe ?
Write Nir Sofer of NIRSOFT about it .
He will verify my statements here , as doubtless will Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft ( many of HIS tools have been removed though , doubtless because he is now an MS employee &amp; Microsoft would sue the LIFE out of CA &amp; others like they , IF they did not remove Dr. Russinovich 's tools from their alleged malware lists ) .In fact ? You 've inspired me to contact Mr. Nir Sofer again on this , because he and I have tried to have stories of this nature posted here , albeit to NO avail... perhaps HIS reply here will also bolster your VERY VALID POINTS here also .
( Thanks for your posting , it is a big help to myself , &amp; others devs who do freewares/sharewares by letting others know what " goes on " from these companies , even when you do their " list removal procedure " forms they have... they still do n't remove your wares !
) APKP.S. = &gt; " I 'd love to run a second or 3rd scanner like I can for spyware " - by syousef ( 465911 ) on Monday January 11 , @ 02 : 11AM ( # 30720570 ) Everytime I 've tried that , &amp; especially during program installs , it gets the " antispyware " product 's " resident scanners " into a " FIGHT " with one another ( one will say " you are about to make changes to [ insert XYZ here ] " and when I tell it to allow it ?
The other resident spyware program will spit the same error/abend back that the last one did that I told to allow the installation ( which , in turn , makes the first one do the error again , infininitum ( i.e.- &gt; a real " dog chasing its tail " situation ) ) .I am surprised you have never run into that in your running dual ( or more ) resident antispyware tooltray ( + service , because some use a service also , other antispywares do not , usually depending on which version of Windows it is you use really ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"2) Antivirus vendors are now trying to police what you can and can't do.
Look at the numerous reports of false positives for programs that are legally grey (or black) but aren't viruses.
I've personally had network tools come up as false positives and it's a pain to unquarantine and exclude them so they don't quarantine themselves again.
" - by syousef (465911) on Monday January 11, @02:11AM (#30720570)This I totally agree with you on, &amp; I myself have been a victim of it as a freeware developer!E.G.-&gt; I wrote an application back in 1999 that is "flagged" by CA as a threat, albeit with "ZERO THREAT LEVELS", listing it claiming it can be used by malware authors to do damage to others... wtf?So, upon the advisement of an attorney, I took their 21 point test (via vendorappeals@ca.com &amp; writing greg.jensen@ca.com also in regards to this), &amp; my application did not violate a SINGLE CONSTRAINT, &amp; yet?
They STILL list it on their website... - this was prior to ANY RULING that antivirus/antispyware companies can now do so (funny that, eh?)!!!
(Boy - it's rather 'funny' how the "rules change" for big money, eh?
Especially when you catch their "so called software engineers" constradicting their own rules for removal from their lists).I am not alone in this either, by the by:----E.G.
#1 - Dr. Mark Russinovich has had this happen with his utilities as wellE.G.
#2 - Nir Sofer of Nirsoft has also... ----In fact, I had a large discussion with Nir about this in fact, via email, &amp; he does a blog on it...(Does it change anything?
Nope!)NOW, my app, ALL it does?
Is allow a user to launch ANY APP HE WANTS, invisibly.
I designed it @ the request of a user on a forums to help him out, back when Apache for Windows did not have a resident background service running (like most webservers do on Windows), or @ least that was his problem he told me.So, since it was VERY EASY TO CREATE, &amp; at the request of a fellow forums member, to help he out, I did so.
(I.E.-&gt; It is a simple app, &amp; it uses 1 line of code to do so (i.e.-&gt; most shell/spawn commands in various compilers have parameters to do this in many compilers), so I "whipped it up" for him, as he requested needing such a tool - just to help out a fellow forums poster whom I had known for years no less online @ NTCompatible.com... )).Next thing I know?
My app is listed by CA + this fool named Thor Schrock as a malware!
(&amp; others also, but, they removed it once I requested it and showed them that I am ANYTHING BUT a 'malware author', per guides I have been doing for decades like this one -&gt; http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=9dacda674c6b55f869c4db3d5b0cc0df&amp;showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com] that owns the top spot on GOOGLE when you search "HOW TO SECURE WINDOWS 2000/XP" and the top 50 or so after that.
It has gone WELL over 250,000 views online in 2 yrs.
time across 15 forums and also has been rated "5/5 stars", or is in their top 5 most viewed on tech forums sections, or was made a "sticky/pinned thread" or "essential guide" no less!
My guide helps Windows uses secure their systems in fact!
)I have YET to have my single app (APKApp2BackGroundDaemonProcessEngine.exe) be removed from CA's or this fool "Thor Schrock's" listings, even though I did not violate a SINGLE constraint of CA's removal request document's constraints... These people victimize smaller developers who are NOT "malware authors" because they know what it costs with attorneys to attack them... so, they get away with it.I was told in fact, by an attorney out of Rochester N.Y. who handles such things I had a winning case, but he told me it was not worth it ($150,000 award roughly possible), because he said these companies would drag him through the courts for 10++ yrs., &amp; that would make his expenses EXCEED THAT AWARD AMOUNT... he told me this is HOW they operate &amp; victimize smaller devs like Nir &amp; myself (and, get away with it too, because of this "red tape" b.s.
).That was 2-3 YEARS AGO now, no less!They also listed it for YEARS (since 2004) under my MIDDLE NAME + LAST NAME ONLY, not my first name included in there (thus, I would never find it by say, searching GOOGLE for my full name... I only stumbled on it by accident one day searching google for where apps I had written had ended up over the years).I also asked this "Thor Schrock" character (who posts on CA's forums, funny that eh?
) where he got his information, &amp; he would NOT divulge it... in fact, I think it is HE who did this to myself because of his lack of letting me know this information.
I consider it libelling myself.
He is by NO MEANS a computer guru, &amp; doesn't even have a degree in the art &amp; science of computing afaik either... nor did he perform a disassembly or formal analysis of my ware either.In fact, I even later asked BOTH PARTIES, why this is so, even approaching Greg Jensen on it by phone and email as noted above earlier here by myself (he is head of CA's development on their "security suite" (which a company I worked for was using &amp; sells, but even THEY removed it from their network because it was tearing up valid emails from customers &amp; partners)...Result?
No answers &amp; even a threat that I not call he again.
I only did so, once.I later asked them if they list PING (because it can issue a ping of death or it could in the past @ least)... they do not.One of their constraints also is IF an app alters a HOSTS file (mine in question here I noted above does not), &amp; I asked why they don't list Spybot "Search &amp; Destroy" (because it uses a HOSTS file to protect a user)... again, they do not.I.E.-&gt; These companies CONTRADICT THEIR OWN RULES!I agree here, with personal reasons, this is a valid problem you note, in "false positives", because even when you do their removal requests and pass their "tests"?
They still do NOT remove your app.IF this is difficult to believe?
Write Nir Sofer of NIRSOFT about it.
He will verify my statements here, as doubtless will Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft (many of HIS tools have been removed though, doubtless because he is now an MS employee &amp; Microsoft would sue the LIFE out of CA &amp; others like they, IF they did not remove Dr. Russinovich's tools from their alleged malware lists).In fact?You've inspired me to contact Mr. Nir Sofer again on this, because he and I have tried to have stories of this nature posted here, albeit to NO avail... perhaps HIS reply here will also bolster your VERY VALID POINTS here also.
(Thanks for your posting, it is a big help to myself, &amp; others devs who do freewares/sharewares by letting others know what "goes on" from these companies, even when you do their "list removal procedure" forms they have... they still don't remove your wares!
)APKP.S.=&gt; "I'd love to run a second or 3rd scanner like I can for spyware" - by syousef (465911) on Monday January 11, @02:11AM (#30720570)Everytime I've tried that, &amp; especially during program installs, it gets the "antispyware" product's "resident scanners" into a "FIGHT" with one another (one will say "you are about to make changes to [insert XYZ here]" and when I tell it to allow it?
The other resident spyware program will spit the same error/abend back that the last one did that I told to allow the installation (which, in turn, makes the first one do the error again, infininitum (i.e.-&gt; a real "dog chasing its tail" situation)).I am surprised you have never run into that in your running dual (or more) resident antispyware tooltray (+ service, because some use a service also, other antispywares do not, usually depending on which version of Windows it is you use really)... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720758</id>
	<title>Only six products?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1263200640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not nearly enough.  I get good results with twelve usually, but for porn surfing 16 is not near enough!  So I use a Mac or Linux instead.  They've got some magical anti-malware internals - probably thirty or forty heuristic engines in there I suspect, but man are they fast!  They don't slow the machine down <i>at all</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not nearly enough .
I get good results with twelve usually , but for porn surfing 16 is not near enough !
So I use a Mac or Linux instead .
They 've got some magical anti-malware internals - probably thirty or forty heuristic engines in there I suspect , but man are they fast !
They do n't slow the machine down at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not nearly enough.
I get good results with twelve usually, but for porn surfing 16 is not near enough!
So I use a Mac or Linux instead.
They've got some magical anti-malware internals - probably thirty or forty heuristic engines in there I suspect, but man are they fast!
They don't slow the machine down at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721326</id>
	<title>Re:Do any of them mention linux or OS-X?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263210780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They also didn't mention OpenBSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also did n't mention OpenBSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also didn't mention OpenBSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721456</id>
	<title>Re:Running multiple products</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1263212520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Is the problem that bad, or is this just the latest version of Chicken Little?  I use Avast! Antivirus, Malwarebytes, Spybot and Comodo's firewall.  They update and scan each night when I'm not at the computer (which is on 24-7, by the way, and has been for more than five years). I've never had a virus or any serious malware infestation.  Never.  A few tracking cookies, the occasional inactive trojan and the like are invariably sacrificed at the nightly slaughter. </p><p> And yet you believe I should give up what freedom I have to governments with a track record that would make any intelligent person cringe in a futile quest for perfect security.  They're more dangerous than the malware, and much, much harder to keep under control. I really hope your fear doesn't spread, and stampede people to give up freedom they'll never get back. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the problem that bad , or is this just the latest version of Chicken Little ?
I use Avast !
Antivirus , Malwarebytes , Spybot and Comodo 's firewall .
They update and scan each night when I 'm not at the computer ( which is on 24-7 , by the way , and has been for more than five years ) .
I 've never had a virus or any serious malware infestation .
Never. A few tracking cookies , the occasional inactive trojan and the like are invariably sacrificed at the nightly slaughter .
And yet you believe I should give up what freedom I have to governments with a track record that would make any intelligent person cringe in a futile quest for perfect security .
They 're more dangerous than the malware , and much , much harder to keep under control .
I really hope your fear does n't spread , and stampede people to give up freedom they 'll never get back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is the problem that bad, or is this just the latest version of Chicken Little?
I use Avast!
Antivirus, Malwarebytes, Spybot and Comodo's firewall.
They update and scan each night when I'm not at the computer (which is on 24-7, by the way, and has been for more than five years).
I've never had a virus or any serious malware infestation.
Never.  A few tracking cookies, the occasional inactive trojan and the like are invariably sacrificed at the nightly slaughter.
And yet you believe I should give up what freedom I have to governments with a track record that would make any intelligent person cringe in a futile quest for perfect security.
They're more dangerous than the malware, and much, much harder to keep under control.
I really hope your fear doesn't spread, and stampede people to give up freedom they'll never get back. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30723500</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263227220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5) Every vendor seems to have their own names for a virus. For pity sake can we have some kind of standard naming mechanism?</p></div><p>
You mean like some sort of <a href="http://cme.mitre.org/" title="mitre.org" rel="nofollow">common malware enumeration</a> [mitre.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 ) Every vendor seems to have their own names for a virus .
For pity sake can we have some kind of standard naming mechanism ?
You mean like some sort of common malware enumeration [ mitre.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5) Every vendor seems to have their own names for a virus.
For pity sake can we have some kind of standard naming mechanism?
You mean like some sort of common malware enumeration [mitre.org]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721800</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263218340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>run HorseSex.exe.</p></div><p>Next time make sure that your links work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>run HorseSex.exe.Next time make sure that your links work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>run HorseSex.exe.Next time make sure that your links work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721470</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263212640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why can't I run 3 different products side by side and decide which one's resident scanner I want switched on? I'm sure there are technical issue but I'm also sure they're not insurmountable."</p><p>Tried running different products using Thinapp thin installs? That would be one way to experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why ca n't I run 3 different products side by side and decide which one 's resident scanner I want switched on ?
I 'm sure there are technical issue but I 'm also sure they 're not insurmountable .
" Tried running different products using Thinapp thin installs ?
That would be one way to experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why can't I run 3 different products side by side and decide which one's resident scanner I want switched on?
I'm sure there are technical issue but I'm also sure they're not insurmountable.
"Tried running different products using Thinapp thin installs?
That would be one way to experiment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30733924</id>
	<title>Re:Running multiple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263237780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Malware programmers are users too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Malware programmers are users too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malware programmers are users too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720860</id>
	<title>How about latin names</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263202680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5) Every vendor seems to have their own names for a virus. For pity sake can we have some kind of standard naming mechanism?</p></div><p>
How about a (latin/greek) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological\_classification" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Biological-like</a> [wikipedia.org] naming system. After all, it works for biology and many (computer)viruses are derived from earlier versions of those viruses, so we could have actual hierarchies.</p><p>
So you could have a name such as: "<i>userus.dumbus.clicktus.pornolinkus.diabolicus</i>"
</p><p>
Of course after the latin name we could come up with a "common" name - based on the name of the unfortunate tech who had the displeasure to remove it first.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 ) Every vendor seems to have their own names for a virus .
For pity sake can we have some kind of standard naming mechanism ?
How about a ( latin/greek ) Biological-like [ wikipedia.org ] naming system .
After all , it works for biology and many ( computer ) viruses are derived from earlier versions of those viruses , so we could have actual hierarchies .
So you could have a name such as : " userus.dumbus.clicktus.pornolinkus.diabolicus " Of course after the latin name we could come up with a " common " name - based on the name of the unfortunate tech who had the displeasure to remove it first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5) Every vendor seems to have their own names for a virus.
For pity sake can we have some kind of standard naming mechanism?
How about a (latin/greek) Biological-like [wikipedia.org] naming system.
After all, it works for biology and many (computer)viruses are derived from earlier versions of those viruses, so we could have actual hierarchies.
So you could have a name such as: "userus.dumbus.clicktus.pornolinkus.diabolicus"

Of course after the latin name we could come up with a "common" name - based on the name of the unfortunate tech who had the displeasure to remove it first.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720824</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1263201780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>consumers CAN select the OS that suits them, it just happens that windows is that OS. linux advocates always claim linux can do everything that windows does, so why aren't people leaving windows for linux in droves??</htmltext>
<tokenext>consumers CAN select the OS that suits them , it just happens that windows is that OS .
linux advocates always claim linux can do everything that windows does , so why are n't people leaving windows for linux in droves ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>consumers CAN select the OS that suits them, it just happens that windows is that OS.
linux advocates always claim linux can do everything that windows does, so why aren't people leaving windows for linux in droves?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720502</id>
	<title>I'm just bragging</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263153360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>28 years of computing on networks, zero instances of malware.  I feel special.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>28 years of computing on networks , zero instances of malware .
I feel special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>28 years of computing on networks, zero instances of malware.
I feel special.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30722808</id>
	<title>Re:I'm just bragging</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263223680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You never ran Windows, even once, in 28 years?</p><p>(rimshot)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You never ran Windows , even once , in 28 years ?
( rimshot )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You never ran Windows, even once, in 28 years?
(rimshot)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720814</id>
	<title>Re:Running multiple products</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1263201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``This is why I have to run 6 different scanners: because there isn't one that detects all the threats. I currently run 2 antivirus programs along with SpyBot, SuperAntiSpyware, Windows Defender, and Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware.''</p><p>And yet, people insist that Windows is user friendly. More so than other operating systems, even.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` This is why I have to run 6 different scanners : because there is n't one that detects all the threats .
I currently run 2 antivirus programs along with SpyBot , SuperAntiSpyware , Windows Defender , and Malwarebyte 's Anti-Malware .
''And yet , people insist that Windows is user friendly .
More so than other operating systems , even .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``This is why I have to run 6 different scanners: because there isn't one that detects all the threats.
I currently run 2 antivirus programs along with SpyBot, SuperAntiSpyware, Windows Defender, and Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware.
''And yet, people insist that Windows is user friendly.
More so than other operating systems, even.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30738490</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Deefburger</author>
	<datestamp>1263317040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem isn't the competition or the free-market.  The problem is Intellectual Property.  IP is what is getting in the way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't the competition or the free-market .
The problem is Intellectual Property .
IP is what is getting in the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't the competition or the free-market.
The problem is Intellectual Property.
IP is what is getting in the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720754</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Revenger75</author>
	<datestamp>1263200580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Antivirus solutions do not co-exist - and not just the resident portion. I'd love to run a second or 3rd scanner like I can for spyware but Antivirus vendors have created a market that is use to the worst kind of lock in. Why can't I run 3 different products side by side and decide which one's resident scanner I want switched on? I'm sure there are technical issue but I'm also sure they're not insurmountable.</p></div><p>
I decided on one paranoid night to try to do just that.  I found that for the most popular free solutions (AVG, Avast, Avira) you can install them side-by-side and narrowed it down to just one resident scanner running.  You either have to find the hidden option in the menus, disable the start-up entries, or just opt not to install them during setup.  I was able to safely ignore the warnings about having other AV products installed during the various setups.
<br>
<br>
An easy solution for individual files is VirusTotal.  You can upload the file (less than 20MB) and have it scan it with ~39 different antivirus programs.
<br>
<br>
The most important thing to remember is that security is a process, and not a product. (If I remember that saying right... and I don't mean explorer.exe)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Antivirus solutions do not co-exist - and not just the resident portion .
I 'd love to run a second or 3rd scanner like I can for spyware but Antivirus vendors have created a market that is use to the worst kind of lock in .
Why ca n't I run 3 different products side by side and decide which one 's resident scanner I want switched on ?
I 'm sure there are technical issue but I 'm also sure they 're not insurmountable .
I decided on one paranoid night to try to do just that .
I found that for the most popular free solutions ( AVG , Avast , Avira ) you can install them side-by-side and narrowed it down to just one resident scanner running .
You either have to find the hidden option in the menus , disable the start-up entries , or just opt not to install them during setup .
I was able to safely ignore the warnings about having other AV products installed during the various setups .
An easy solution for individual files is VirusTotal .
You can upload the file ( less than 20MB ) and have it scan it with ~ 39 different antivirus programs .
The most important thing to remember is that security is a process , and not a product .
( If I remember that saying right... and I do n't mean explorer.exe )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Antivirus solutions do not co-exist - and not just the resident portion.
I'd love to run a second or 3rd scanner like I can for spyware but Antivirus vendors have created a market that is use to the worst kind of lock in.
Why can't I run 3 different products side by side and decide which one's resident scanner I want switched on?
I'm sure there are technical issue but I'm also sure they're not insurmountable.
I decided on one paranoid night to try to do just that.
I found that for the most popular free solutions (AVG, Avast, Avira) you can install them side-by-side and narrowed it down to just one resident scanner running.
You either have to find the hidden option in the menus, disable the start-up entries, or just opt not to install them during setup.
I was able to safely ignore the warnings about having other AV products installed during the various setups.
An easy solution for individual files is VirusTotal.
You can upload the file (less than 20MB) and have it scan it with ~39 different antivirus programs.
The most important thing to remember is that security is a process, and not a product.
(If I remember that saying right... and I don't mean explorer.exe)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30723166</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1263225540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>2) Antivirus vendors are now trying to police what you can and can't do. Look at the numerous reports of false positives for programs that are legally grey (or black) but aren't viruses.</i> <br> <br>They don't even have to be questionable. VNC manages to generate plenty of false positives, IME.<br> <br> <i>4) The products are often so badly written that they cause as many problems as they solve. A bad update here or there can (and has in the past) caused irrevocable system damage that has required a reinstall or restore from backup for users. What's the point of an antivirus that does this.</i> <br> <br>Not helped if these programs are over complex and fragile. The ultimate apparently being Norton which now has it's own special uninstall utility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Antivirus vendors are now trying to police what you can and ca n't do .
Look at the numerous reports of false positives for programs that are legally grey ( or black ) but are n't viruses .
They do n't even have to be questionable .
VNC manages to generate plenty of false positives , IME .
4 ) The products are often so badly written that they cause as many problems as they solve .
A bad update here or there can ( and has in the past ) caused irrevocable system damage that has required a reinstall or restore from backup for users .
What 's the point of an antivirus that does this .
Not helped if these programs are over complex and fragile .
The ultimate apparently being Norton which now has it 's own special uninstall utility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Antivirus vendors are now trying to police what you can and can't do.
Look at the numerous reports of false positives for programs that are legally grey (or black) but aren't viruses.
They don't even have to be questionable.
VNC manages to generate plenty of false positives, IME.
4) The products are often so badly written that they cause as many problems as they solve.
A bad update here or there can (and has in the past) caused irrevocable system damage that has required a reinstall or restore from backup for users.
What's the point of an antivirus that does this.
Not helped if these programs are over complex and fragile.
The ultimate apparently being Norton which now has it's own special uninstall utility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720716</id>
	<title>Re:Running multiple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263243180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and then you complain Windows runs like a snail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and then you complain Windows runs like a snail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and then you complain Windows runs like a snail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721146</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263207300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>to patch over their inability to not install malware</p></div><p>Fixed that for you. Yeah, no-body will admit that they installed loads of what turned out to be malware while trying to watch porn, it must have gotten in by itself due to Windows security flaws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>to patch over their inability to not install malwareFixed that for you .
Yeah , no-body will admit that they installed loads of what turned out to be malware while trying to watch porn , it must have gotten in by itself due to Windows security flaws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to patch over their inability to not install malwareFixed that for you.
Yeah, no-body will admit that they installed loads of what turned out to be malware while trying to watch porn, it must have gotten in by itself due to Windows security flaws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720996</id>
	<title>Re:Do any of them mention linux or OS-X?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263204720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you appear to love man-sex, you brown eye licker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you appear to love man-sex , you brown eye licker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you appear to love man-sex, you brown eye licker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396</id>
	<title>Do any of them mention linux or OS-X?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1263151860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>At all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720618</id>
	<title>Re:Do any of them mention linux or OS-X?</title>
	<author>starbugs</author>
	<datestamp>1263241620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article does mention <a href="http://www.apple.com/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Apples</a> [apple.com] and <a href="http://orangelin.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">Oranges </a> [sourceforge.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does mention Apples [ apple.com ] and Oranges [ sourceforge.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article does mention Apples [apple.com] and Oranges  [sourceforge.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720934</id>
	<title>Re:Example of competition gone wrong</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1263203940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Photoshop, Illustrator, certain games..<br>
<br>
It's not that they can't run on Linux, it's that they don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop , Illustrator , certain games. . It 's not that they ca n't run on Linux , it 's that they do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop, Illustrator, certain games..

It's not that they can't run on Linux, it's that they don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720824</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30723166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30727014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30733924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30722792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30738490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30722000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30732644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30726060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30723500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30725144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30724824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_033238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30722808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_033238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30726060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721452
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30722000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30732644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30723500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30723166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30738490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_033238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30722808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30727014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_033238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30724824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30722792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30733924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_033238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30721326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30725144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_033238.30720618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
