<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_16_029201</id>
	<title>Code Used To Attack Google Now Public</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263656760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>itwbennett writes <i>"The IE attack code used in last month's attack on Google and 33 other companies was <a href="http://wepawet.iseclab.org/view.php?hash=1aea206aa64ebeabb07237f1e2230d0f&amp;type=js">submitted for analysis</a> Thursday on the Wepawet malware analysis Web site. One day after <a href="http://www.itworld.com/security/93009/attack-code-used-hack-google-now-public">being made publicly available</a>, it had been included in at least one hacking tool and could be seen in online attacks, according to Dave Marcus, director of security research and communications at McAfee. Marcus noted that the attack is very reliable on IE 6 running on Windows XP, and could possibly be modified to work on newer versions of IE."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>itwbennett writes " The IE attack code used in last month 's attack on Google and 33 other companies was submitted for analysis Thursday on the Wepawet malware analysis Web site .
One day after being made publicly available , it had been included in at least one hacking tool and could be seen in online attacks , according to Dave Marcus , director of security research and communications at McAfee .
Marcus noted that the attack is very reliable on IE 6 running on Windows XP , and could possibly be modified to work on newer versions of IE .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>itwbennett writes "The IE attack code used in last month's attack on Google and 33 other companies was submitted for analysis Thursday on the Wepawet malware analysis Web site.
One day after being made publicly available, it had been included in at least one hacking tool and could be seen in online attacks, according to Dave Marcus, director of security research and communications at McAfee.
Marcus noted that the attack is very reliable on IE 6 running on Windows XP, and could possibly be modified to work on newer versions of IE.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789438</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>V for Vendetta</author>
	<datestamp>1263646980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All the legacy IE6 users I've met tend to be government, non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Here's another option for being forced to use IE6: still running W2K here. Unfortunately, MS decided "IE7 needs &gt;= XP". So, until we replace our hardware, we can't upgrade to IE &gt; 6 (which we would like to do, believe me, IE6 sucks hard). And no, we can't replace IE with another browser. 3rd party software requires IE in order to work.</p><p>You might ask "Why you're still on W2K?". Well, because at that time, XP offered nothing over W2K for us which would justify the amount of money and time needed to upgrade.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the legacy IE6 users I 've met tend to be government , non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion .
Here 's another option for being forced to use IE6 : still running W2K here .
Unfortunately , MS decided " IE7 needs &gt; = XP " .
So , until we replace our hardware , we ca n't upgrade to IE &gt; 6 ( which we would like to do , believe me , IE6 sucks hard ) .
And no , we ca n't replace IE with another browser .
3rd party software requires IE in order to work.You might ask " Why you 're still on W2K ? " .
Well , because at that time , XP offered nothing over W2K for us which would justify the amount of money and time needed to upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the legacy IE6 users I've met tend to be government, non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.
Here's another option for being forced to use IE6: still running W2K here.
Unfortunately, MS decided "IE7 needs &gt;= XP".
So, until we replace our hardware, we can't upgrade to IE &gt; 6 (which we would like to do, believe me, IE6 sucks hard).
And no, we can't replace IE with another browser.
3rd party software requires IE in order to work.You might ask "Why you're still on W2K?".
Well, because at that time, XP offered nothing over W2K for us which would justify the amount of money and time needed to upgrade.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</id>
	<title>This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263574020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The attack is very reliable on Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>That's apparently what happened at Google late last year, when hackers were able to get into the company's internal systems</p></div><p>Google has employees running XP/IE6???</p><p>The only way I run IE6 nowadays is in a VM and basically just to test websites we're developing on local/trusted hosts. I wouldn't dare accessing anything with IE6 (especially with reputable sites being hacked and all).</p><p>All the legacy IE6 users I've met tend to be government, non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.</p><p>This is a shocker!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The attack is very reliable on Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP ...That 's apparently what happened at Google late last year , when hackers were able to get into the company 's internal systemsGoogle has employees running XP/IE6 ? ?
? The only way I run IE6 nowadays is in a VM and basically just to test websites we 're developing on local/trusted hosts .
I would n't dare accessing anything with IE6 ( especially with reputable sites being hacked and all ) .All the legacy IE6 users I 've met tend to be government , non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.This is a shocker !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The attack is very reliable on Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP ...That's apparently what happened at Google late last year, when hackers were able to get into the company's internal systemsGoogle has employees running XP/IE6??
?The only way I run IE6 nowadays is in a VM and basically just to test websites we're developing on local/trusted hosts.
I wouldn't dare accessing anything with IE6 (especially with reputable sites being hacked and all).All the legacy IE6 users I've met tend to be government, non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.This is a shocker!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788192</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet you test your sites on IE6.   Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random\_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random\_vulnerable browser.   I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.</p></div><p>Perhaps some sites can get away with dropping IE6 support, but, at least for my employer's main public site, IE6 accounts for 20\% of our users. Should they use a better browser? Yeah. Can we get away with kicking sand in the face of 1 in 5 of our users? Hell no.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet you test your sites on IE6 .
Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $ random \ _unsupported browser , or better yet the same one you give to $ random \ _vulnerable browser .
I 'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments , non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.Perhaps some sites can get away with dropping IE6 support , but , at least for my employer 's main public site , IE6 accounts for 20 \ % of our users .
Should they use a better browser ?
Yeah. Can we get away with kicking sand in the face of 1 in 5 of our users ?
Hell no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet you test your sites on IE6.
Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random\_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random\_vulnerable browser.
I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.Perhaps some sites can get away with dropping IE6 support, but, at least for my employer's main public site, IE6 accounts for 20\% of our users.
Should they use a better browser?
Yeah. Can we get away with kicking sand in the face of 1 in 5 of our users?
Hell no.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789090</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1263642000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gah.  Why does this stupidity keep getting repeated?</p><p>IE6 comes installed with Windows XP.. you can't uninstall it.  For people who *never* use IE, that's the version we're going to have installed.</p><p>The problem here is that Acrobat Reader was embedding IE to display some user controllable elements.  So the attack is:</p><p>1. Send the target a PDF.<br>2. They open it in Acrobat Reader.<br>3. Acrobat Reader loads up IE to display some elements of the PDF.<br>4. The embedded code triggers and exploit in IE.<br>5. Arbitrary code execution follows.</p><p>And yes, it is a totally lame attack but it works because:</p><p>* Way too many people use Acrobat Reader to read PDFs (monoculture)<br>* IE can't be uninstalled, and no-one updates a browser they don't use.</p><p>End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gah .
Why does this stupidity keep getting repeated ? IE6 comes installed with Windows XP.. you ca n't uninstall it .
For people who * never * use IE , that 's the version we 're going to have installed.The problem here is that Acrobat Reader was embedding IE to display some user controllable elements .
So the attack is : 1 .
Send the target a PDF.2 .
They open it in Acrobat Reader.3 .
Acrobat Reader loads up IE to display some elements of the PDF.4 .
The embedded code triggers and exploit in IE.5 .
Arbitrary code execution follows.And yes , it is a totally lame attack but it works because : * Way too many people use Acrobat Reader to read PDFs ( monoculture ) * IE ca n't be uninstalled , and no-one updates a browser they do n't use.End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gah.
Why does this stupidity keep getting repeated?IE6 comes installed with Windows XP.. you can't uninstall it.
For people who *never* use IE, that's the version we're going to have installed.The problem here is that Acrobat Reader was embedding IE to display some user controllable elements.
So the attack is:1.
Send the target a PDF.2.
They open it in Acrobat Reader.3.
Acrobat Reader loads up IE to display some elements of the PDF.4.
The embedded code triggers and exploit in IE.5.
Arbitrary code execution follows.And yes, it is a totally lame attack but it works because:* Way too many people use Acrobat Reader to read PDFs (monoculture)* IE can't be uninstalled, and no-one updates a browser they don't use.End of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787768</id>
	<title>Yeeehawww!  I NEED THIS LIKE A DIRTY DIAPER!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263577260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oooops! Ie6 did a dootie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooops !
Ie6 did a dootie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oooops!
Ie6 did a dootie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788416</id>
	<title>Finally! Maybe..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263585360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully now that there's been this wide scale attack on major corporations, all IT departments can finally force dropping the browser for security reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully now that there 's been this wide scale attack on major corporations , all IT departments can finally force dropping the browser for security reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully now that there's been this wide scale attack on major corporations, all IT departments can finally force dropping the browser for security reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787558</id>
	<title>"Aurora" IE Exploit Used Against Google in Action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263574680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2010/01/the-aurora-ie-exploit-in-action/" title="praetorianprefect.com">http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2010/01/the-aurora-ie-exploit-in-action/</a> [praetorianprefect.com]</p><p>Yawn, another unpatched MS browser exploit.</p><p>I hear there are several more for sale...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //praetorianprefect.com/archives/2010/01/the-aurora-ie-exploit-in-action/ [ praetorianprefect.com ] Yawn , another unpatched MS browser exploit.I hear there are several more for sale.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2010/01/the-aurora-ie-exploit-in-action/ [praetorianprefect.com]Yawn, another unpatched MS browser exploit.I hear there are several more for sale...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788704</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263635400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly the reaason having kids, family, lights and such other things is EVIL.<br>Having them forces people to do evil things just to mantain them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly the reaason having kids , family , lights and such other things is EVIL.Having them forces people to do evil things just to mantain them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly the reaason having kids, family, lights and such other things is EVIL.Having them forces people to do evil things just to mantain them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787770</id>
	<title>Re:A Question</title>
	<author>Ziekheid</author>
	<datestamp>1263577320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a strong indicator that no one really knows what they are doing per se. First of all there is a big difference between a private network that is cut off from the internet and contains access to a lot of very sensitive data and a public network with employees working with semi-sensitive data.<br>Beside that it will always be a cat and mouse game and the type of browser (despite IE6 being very bad) with all currently populair browsers in mind wouldn't make that much of a difference because people will always focus on popular targets and Firefox is no exception.<br>Why should Microsoft be held responsible for these issues?<br>It's your own choice to pick a browser and no browser on the market can guarantee to be 100\% safe, it rather begs the question why people haven't upgraded from IE6 to IE8 yet.<br>I'm also pretty sure companies like Microsoft have made sure they are protected from liability suits when it comes to products like these.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a strong indicator that no one really knows what they are doing per se .
First of all there is a big difference between a private network that is cut off from the internet and contains access to a lot of very sensitive data and a public network with employees working with semi-sensitive data.Beside that it will always be a cat and mouse game and the type of browser ( despite IE6 being very bad ) with all currently populair browsers in mind would n't make that much of a difference because people will always focus on popular targets and Firefox is no exception.Why should Microsoft be held responsible for these issues ? It 's your own choice to pick a browser and no browser on the market can guarantee to be 100 \ % safe , it rather begs the question why people have n't upgraded from IE6 to IE8 yet.I 'm also pretty sure companies like Microsoft have made sure they are protected from liability suits when it comes to products like these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a strong indicator that no one really knows what they are doing per se.
First of all there is a big difference between a private network that is cut off from the internet and contains access to a lot of very sensitive data and a public network with employees working with semi-sensitive data.Beside that it will always be a cat and mouse game and the type of browser (despite IE6 being very bad) with all currently populair browsers in mind wouldn't make that much of a difference because people will always focus on popular targets and Firefox is no exception.Why should Microsoft be held responsible for these issues?It's your own choice to pick a browser and no browser on the market can guarantee to be 100\% safe, it rather begs the question why people haven't upgraded from IE6 to IE8 yet.I'm also pretty sure companies like Microsoft have made sure they are protected from liability suits when it comes to products like these.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790058</id>
	<title>Re:A Question - AN ANSWER (w/ proofs)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263654780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Microsoft held liable for these issues? Why do we even use Windows for Government systems?"</b> - by koan (80826) on Friday January 15, @11:07PM (#30787586)</p></div><p>I feel that MS ought to ship a system TOTALLY "closed off", personally (or, @ least, security hardened, per the guidelines I set below)</p><p>I do show guidelines for security that DO actually work no less there!</p><p>Simply due to the usage of "layered security", conscientious patching, &amp; knowing when and when NOT to use things like JAVASCRIPT + FAR MORE!</p><p>(E.G.-&gt; AND, even a "return to antiquities teachings" (per Ozymandias of "The Watchmen" in that quote) by using things like HOSTS files for example, which is 1970's thinking (but, it works like no tomorrow for BOTH added speed, but more importantly, for ADDED LAYERED SECURITY, especially nowadays...)).</p><p>Then, when the END-USER elects to "turn those features" on again (or rather, the protection vs. them, off)? He/She, as said end-user, assumes the responsibility for what happens... NOT MS!</p><p>(MS ships these OS' nowhere NEAR where they can be 'security-hardened' to, &amp; probably so "everything just works" + so it's easier to "mass deploy" quickly, imo @ least, as to the "WHY" of why MS' OS are so damned 'wide open' outta the box/oem stock!)</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"Hackers are cutting edge people, the government seems to be dwelling in 1990's tatics and security"</b> - by koan (80826) on Friday January 15, @11:07PM (#30787586)</p></div><p>Ah, ACTUALLY in my experience (more than a year professionally dealing with their junk, disassembling &amp; tracing it, &amp; removing it etc. et al as part of my job duties when level 1 folks failed vs. them)?</p><p>They're MOSTLY "script kiddies" actually...</p><p>I.E.-&gt; Using &amp; REUSING the stuff the TRULY "cutting edge" people's (hacker/cracker) designs &amp; work + tactics, over &amp; over again, prefab style. Sometimes with only SLIGHT variations...</p><p><b>HOWEVER, for security THAT ACTUALLY WORKS</b> (with a testimonial I'll supply, just one of MANY like it, from those that applied my guide's techniques/methods/suggestions)?</p><p>YOU DO THIS:</p><p>====</p><p><b>HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7, &amp; make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance</b> (&amp; beyond)<b>:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=fc2d534ea11b15071b6ffc04ad948f00&amp;showtopic=2662" title="tcmagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=fc2d534ea11b15071b6ffc04ad948f00&amp;showtopic=2662</a> [tcmagazine.com]</p><p>====</p><p>A testimonial to its effectiveness, for a year straight no less of uptime (&amp; beyond, this reply is quite old actually):</p><p>----</p><p><b>PERTINENT QUOTE(s)/EXCERPT(s):</b></p><p><a href="http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430" title="xtremepccentral.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430</a> [xtremepccentral.com]</p><p>"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything!"</p><p>and</p><p><a href="http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3" title="xtremepccentral.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3</a> [xtremepccentral.com]</p><p>"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"</p><p>Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com</p><p>----</p><p>By the by:</p><p>I actually wrote the FIRST "Security &amp; Speedup guide" for Windows (1997-2001 -&gt; <a href="http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text" title="neowin.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text</a> [neowin.net] for NTCompatible.com (&amp; that's Neowin's "take" on it, an excellent rating no less)...</p><p>AND, which is now carried forward to today &amp; does well here &amp; elsewhere online!</p><p>(HOWEVER? The latest version above is MOSTLY on security now though, rather than speed ups, because that IS the "bigger problem" out here nowadays)</p><p>It's done well, &amp; to the tune of:</p><p>----</p><p>A.) WELL over 250,000++ views online in 2 yrs. time online, across 15 forums online</p><p>B.) It's often been made an "Essential Guide" on 15/20 forums its on</p><p>C.) It's often been made a "Sticky/Pinned" thread on 15/20 forums its on</p><p>D.) It's often in the "most viewed" on 15/20 forums its on</p><p>E.) It's often "5/5 star rated" etc. et al (on 15/20 forums it is on)</p><p>----</p><p>(In fact - Search "HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP" online, &amp; you'll see it "owns" the top spot &amp; top 50-100 in fact -&gt; <a href="http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b35dfec0da75d7dab52dab8b321d373e&amp;showtopic=2662" title="tcmagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b35dfec0da75d7dab52dab8b321d373e&amp;showtopic=2662</a> [tcmagazine.com] and many others in that return recordset from GOOGLE &amp; from many of the others sites its featured on...)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; To quote TONY STARK from the hit film of 2008, IRON MAN? "IT WORKS"... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft held liable for these issues ?
Why do we even use Windows for Government systems ?
" - by koan ( 80826 ) on Friday January 15 , @ 11 : 07PM ( # 30787586 ) I feel that MS ought to ship a system TOTALLY " closed off " , personally ( or , @ least , security hardened , per the guidelines I set below ) I do show guidelines for security that DO actually work no less there ! Simply due to the usage of " layered security " , conscientious patching , &amp; knowing when and when NOT to use things like JAVASCRIPT + FAR MORE !
( E.G.- &gt; AND , even a " return to antiquities teachings " ( per Ozymandias of " The Watchmen " in that quote ) by using things like HOSTS files for example , which is 1970 's thinking ( but , it works like no tomorrow for BOTH added speed , but more importantly , for ADDED LAYERED SECURITY , especially nowadays... ) ) .Then , when the END-USER elects to " turn those features " on again ( or rather , the protection vs. them , off ) ?
He/She , as said end-user , assumes the responsibility for what happens... NOT MS !
( MS ships these OS ' nowhere NEAR where they can be 'security-hardened ' to , &amp; probably so " everything just works " + so it 's easier to " mass deploy " quickly , imo @ least , as to the " WHY " of why MS ' OS are so damned 'wide open ' outta the box/oem stock !
) ---- " Hackers are cutting edge people , the government seems to be dwelling in 1990 's tatics and security " - by koan ( 80826 ) on Friday January 15 , @ 11 : 07PM ( # 30787586 ) Ah , ACTUALLY in my experience ( more than a year professionally dealing with their junk , disassembling &amp; tracing it , &amp; removing it etc .
et al as part of my job duties when level 1 folks failed vs. them ) ? They 're MOSTLY " script kiddies " actually...I.E.- &gt; Using &amp; REUSING the stuff the TRULY " cutting edge " people 's ( hacker/cracker ) designs &amp; work + tactics , over &amp; over again , prefab style .
Sometimes with only SLIGHT variations...HOWEVER , for security THAT ACTUALLY WORKS ( with a testimonial I 'll supply , just one of MANY like it , from those that applied my guide 's techniques/methods/suggestions ) ? YOU DO THIS : = = = = HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 , &amp; make it " fun-to-do " , via CIS Tool Guidance ( &amp; beyond ) : http : //www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php ? s = fc2d534ea11b15071b6ffc04ad948f00&amp;showtopic = 2662 [ tcmagazine.com ] = = = = A testimonial to its effectiveness , for a year straight no less of uptime ( &amp; beyond , this reply is quite old actually ) : ----PERTINENT QUOTE ( s ) /EXCERPT ( s ) : http : //www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php ? t = 28430 [ xtremepccentral.com ] " ...recently , months ago when you finally got this guide done , had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids .
My client , who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this , has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS !
I have n't even had a follow up call which is unusual .
Now I do n't recommend this for the average joe , but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything !
" andhttp : //www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php ? s = 10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t = 28430&amp;page = 3 [ xtremepccentral.com ] " Its 2009 - still trouble free !
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration , and he said I was doing overkill .
I told him yes , but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get .
He said good point .
So from 2008 till 2009 .
No speed decreases , its been to a lan party , moved around in a move , and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008 .
Great stuff !
My client STILL Has n't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid .
I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works .
Speaking of which , I need to call her to see if I can get some leads .
APK - I will say it again , the guide is FANTASTIC !
Its made my PC experience much easier .
Sandboxing was great .
Getting my host file updated , setting services to system service , rather than system local .
( except AVG updater , needed system local ) " Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com----By the by : I actually wrote the FIRST " Security &amp; Speedup guide " for Windows ( 1997-2001 - &gt; http : //www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text [ neowin.net ] for NTCompatible.com ( &amp; that 's Neowin 's " take " on it , an excellent rating no less ) ...AND , which is now carried forward to today &amp; does well here &amp; elsewhere online ! ( HOWEVER ?
The latest version above is MOSTLY on security now though , rather than speed ups , because that IS the " bigger problem " out here nowadays ) It 's done well , &amp; to the tune of : ----A .
) WELL over 250,000 + + views online in 2 yrs .
time online , across 15 forums onlineB .
) It 's often been made an " Essential Guide " on 15/20 forums its onC .
) It 's often been made a " Sticky/Pinned " thread on 15/20 forums its onD .
) It 's often in the " most viewed " on 15/20 forums its onE .
) It 's often " 5/5 star rated " etc .
et al ( on 15/20 forums it is on ) ---- ( In fact - Search " HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP " online , &amp; you 'll see it " owns " the top spot &amp; top 50-100 in fact - &gt; http : //www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php ? s = b35dfec0da75d7dab52dab8b321d373e&amp;showtopic = 2662 [ tcmagazine.com ] and many others in that return recordset from GOOGLE &amp; from many of the others sites its featured on... ) APKP.S. = &gt; To quote TONY STARK from the hit film of 2008 , IRON MAN ?
" IT WORKS " ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft held liable for these issues?
Why do we even use Windows for Government systems?
" - by koan (80826) on Friday January 15, @11:07PM (#30787586)I feel that MS ought to ship a system TOTALLY "closed off", personally (or, @ least, security hardened, per the guidelines I set below)I do show guidelines for security that DO actually work no less there!Simply due to the usage of "layered security", conscientious patching, &amp; knowing when and when NOT to use things like JAVASCRIPT + FAR MORE!
(E.G.-&gt; AND, even a "return to antiquities teachings" (per Ozymandias of "The Watchmen" in that quote) by using things like HOSTS files for example, which is 1970's thinking (but, it works like no tomorrow for BOTH added speed, but more importantly, for ADDED LAYERED SECURITY, especially nowadays...)).Then, when the END-USER elects to "turn those features" on again (or rather, the protection vs. them, off)?
He/She, as said end-user, assumes the responsibility for what happens... NOT MS!
(MS ships these OS' nowhere NEAR where they can be 'security-hardened' to, &amp; probably so "everything just works" + so it's easier to "mass deploy" quickly, imo @ least, as to the "WHY" of why MS' OS are so damned 'wide open' outta the box/oem stock!
)----"Hackers are cutting edge people, the government seems to be dwelling in 1990's tatics and security" - by koan (80826) on Friday January 15, @11:07PM (#30787586)Ah, ACTUALLY in my experience (more than a year professionally dealing with their junk, disassembling &amp; tracing it, &amp; removing it etc.
et al as part of my job duties when level 1 folks failed vs. them)?They're MOSTLY "script kiddies" actually...I.E.-&gt; Using &amp; REUSING the stuff the TRULY "cutting edge" people's (hacker/cracker) designs &amp; work + tactics, over &amp; over again, prefab style.
Sometimes with only SLIGHT variations...HOWEVER, for security THAT ACTUALLY WORKS (with a testimonial I'll supply, just one of MANY like it, from those that applied my guide's techniques/methods/suggestions)?YOU DO THIS:====HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7, &amp; make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (&amp; beyond):http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=fc2d534ea11b15071b6ffc04ad948f00&amp;showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]====A testimonial to its effectiveness, for a year straight no less of uptime (&amp; beyond, this reply is quite old actually):----PERTINENT QUOTE(s)/EXCERPT(s):http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430 [xtremepccentral.com]"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids.
My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS!
I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual.
Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything!
"andhttp://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]"Its 2009 - still trouble free!
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill.
I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get.
He said good point.
So from 2008 till 2009.
No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008.
Great stuff!
My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid.
I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works.
Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads.
APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC!
Its made my PC experience much easier.
Sandboxing was great.
Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local.
(except AVG updater, needed system local)"Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com----By the by:I actually wrote the FIRST "Security &amp; Speedup guide" for Windows (1997-2001 -&gt; http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text [neowin.net] for NTCompatible.com (&amp; that's Neowin's "take" on it, an excellent rating no less)...AND, which is now carried forward to today &amp; does well here &amp; elsewhere online!(HOWEVER?
The latest version above is MOSTLY on security now though, rather than speed ups, because that IS the "bigger problem" out here nowadays)It's done well, &amp; to the tune of:----A.
) WELL over 250,000++ views online in 2 yrs.
time online, across 15 forums onlineB.
) It's often been made an "Essential Guide" on 15/20 forums its onC.
) It's often been made a "Sticky/Pinned" thread on 15/20 forums its onD.
) It's often in the "most viewed" on 15/20 forums its onE.
) It's often "5/5 star rated" etc.
et al (on 15/20 forums it is on)----(In fact - Search "HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP" online, &amp; you'll see it "owns" the top spot &amp; top 50-100 in fact -&gt; http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b35dfec0da75d7dab52dab8b321d373e&amp;showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com] and many others in that return recordset from GOOGLE &amp; from many of the others sites its featured on...)APKP.S.=&gt; To quote TONY STARK from the hit film of 2008, IRON MAN?
"IT WORKS"... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30796390</id>
	<title>Microsoft - By Idiots for Idiots</title>
	<author>dogzdik</author>
	<datestamp>1263669960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsofts greatest innovation is to steal it.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaa

And their totally SHIT browseR/s....

I have more security if I pull down my pants and hang my bare arse out of a tree at night in the park.

LOSERS.

I hate microsoft - I hate microsoft - I hate microsoft....

Traaaa Laaaaaa Laaa Laaaaaaaaaa</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsofts greatest innovation is to steal it .
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaa And their totally SHIT browseR/s... . I have more security if I pull down my pants and hang my bare arse out of a tree at night in the park .
LOSERS . I hate microsoft - I hate microsoft - I hate microsoft... . Traaaa Laaaaaa Laaa Laaaaaaaaaa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsofts greatest innovation is to steal it.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaa

And their totally SHIT browseR/s....

I have more security if I pull down my pants and hang my bare arse out of a tree at night in the park.
LOSERS.

I hate microsoft - I hate microsoft - I hate microsoft....

Traaaa Laaaaaa Laaa Laaaaaaaaaa</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788352</id>
	<title>Sorta like irony. Sorta.</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1263584520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else find it amusing that Google has its very own <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome" title="google.com">web browser</a> [google.com] yet IE6 is apparently still widely deployed on their desktops?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else find it amusing that Google has its very own web browser [ google.com ] yet IE6 is apparently still widely deployed on their desktops ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else find it amusing that Google has its very own web browser [google.com] yet IE6 is apparently still widely deployed on their desktops?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789538</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263648300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE7 and IE8 are also affected according to MS:<br>http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/microsoft-warns-of-ie-security-flaw-used-in-google-attacks.ars</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE7 and IE8 are also affected according to MS : http : //arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/microsoft-warns-of-ie-security-flaw-used-in-google-attacks.ars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE7 and IE8 are also affected according to MS:http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/microsoft-warns-of-ie-security-flaw-used-in-google-attacks.ars</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790188</id>
	<title>I really hope they posted it...</title>
	<author>indros13</author>
	<datestamp>1263656160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to code.google.com.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to code.google.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to code.google.com.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789136</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Explorer 6 is older than the Euro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263642600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but what's the Euro-Pound exchange rate?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but what 's the Euro-Pound exchange rate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but what's the Euro-Pound exchange rate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787556</id>
	<title>In her defense..</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1263574680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That admin has a hot rack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That admin has a hot rack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That admin has a hot rack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788526</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter which browser.</title>
	<author>MadMaverick9</author>
	<datestamp>1263674100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It doesn't matter which browser you're using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
If you're logged in as Administrator or a user with administrative user rights/access, while surfing the web, checking your email, etc. --&gt; you're vulnerable.
</p><p>
Until users change their behavior and start using least-privilege accounts while surfing the web, it's wrong to blame the browser.
</p><p>
Microsoft even says it in their security advisory kb 979352: An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights.
</p><p>
And this applies to any OS: Linux, Windows, Mac OS, etc.
</p><p>
Rootkit - contrary to what its name may imply, a rootkit does not grant a user administrator privileges, as it requires prior admin access to execute and tamper with system files and processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter which browser you 're using .. . If you 're logged in as Administrator or a user with administrative user rights/access , while surfing the web , checking your email , etc .
-- &gt; you 're vulnerable .
Until users change their behavior and start using least-privilege accounts while surfing the web , it 's wrong to blame the browser .
Microsoft even says it in their security advisory kb 979352 : An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user .
Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights .
And this applies to any OS : Linux , Windows , Mac OS , etc .
Rootkit - contrary to what its name may imply , a rootkit does not grant a user administrator privileges , as it requires prior admin access to execute and tamper with system files and processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It doesn't matter which browser you're using ...

If you're logged in as Administrator or a user with administrative user rights/access, while surfing the web, checking your email, etc.
--&gt; you're vulnerable.
Until users change their behavior and start using least-privilege accounts while surfing the web, it's wrong to blame the browser.
Microsoft even says it in their security advisory kb 979352: An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user.
Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights.
And this applies to any OS: Linux, Windows, Mac OS, etc.
Rootkit - contrary to what its name may imply, a rootkit does not grant a user administrator privileges, as it requires prior admin access to execute and tamper with system files and processes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788904</id>
	<title>"the attack is very reliable on IE 6"</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1263639360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YES. Finally.</p><p>Kill IE6. Kill it with fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YES .
Finally.Kill IE6 .
Kill it with fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YES.
Finally.Kill IE6.
Kill it with fire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30794100</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>ralphdaugherty</author>
	<datestamp>1263643320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And yes, it is a totally lame attack but it works because:</i></p><p><i>* Way too many people use Acrobat Reader to read PDFs (monoculture)<br>* IE can't be uninstalled, and no-one updates a browser they don't use.</i></p><p><i>End of story.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; wow, I had no idea Adobe was doing that. I will have to get that Firefox PDF reader plugin ad uninstall Acrobat Reader if they are using IE. (I have the included IE version with XP and never upgraded it, like most non-IE users.) Acrobat has its own security problems and I reluctantly upgrade when I think there's a version without a major exploit left in it, but embedding IE is unacceptable.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They're gone.</p><p>
&nbsp; rd<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yes , it is a totally lame attack but it works because : * Way too many people use Acrobat Reader to read PDFs ( monoculture ) * IE ca n't be uninstalled , and no-one updates a browser they do n't use.End of story .
      wow , I had no idea Adobe was doing that .
I will have to get that Firefox PDF reader plugin ad uninstall Acrobat Reader if they are using IE .
( I have the included IE version with XP and never upgraded it , like most non-IE users .
) Acrobat has its own security problems and I reluctantly upgrade when I think there 's a version without a major exploit left in it , but embedding IE is unacceptable .
      They 're gone .
  rd    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yes, it is a totally lame attack but it works because:* Way too many people use Acrobat Reader to read PDFs (monoculture)* IE can't be uninstalled, and no-one updates a browser they don't use.End of story.
      wow, I had no idea Adobe was doing that.
I will have to get that Firefox PDF reader plugin ad uninstall Acrobat Reader if they are using IE.
(I have the included IE version with XP and never upgraded it, like most non-IE users.
) Acrobat has its own security problems and I reluctantly upgrade when I think there's a version without a major exploit left in it, but embedding IE is unacceptable.
      They're gone.
  rd
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787944</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Gr8Apes</author>
	<datestamp>1263579060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at this point, I purposely break IE6 by including certain 3rd party libraries that are standards complaint yet don't work in IE6. I have that little notice that this site may not work properly in IE 6, along with a link to Firefox and Safari.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at this point , I purposely break IE6 by including certain 3rd party libraries that are standards complaint yet do n't work in IE6 .
I have that little notice that this site may not work properly in IE 6 , along with a link to Firefox and Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at this point, I purposely break IE6 by including certain 3rd party libraries that are standards complaint yet don't work in IE6.
I have that little notice that this site may not work properly in IE 6, along with a link to Firefox and Safari.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789986</id>
	<title>So you are the one</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1263653940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are the one that has sales demanding we support old browsers.
</p><p>Right men, we got its location, capture is imminent.
</p><p>Anyone want to set up a poll what do with him?
</p><p>It better have a cowboyNeal option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are the one that has sales demanding we support old browsers .
Right men , we got its location , capture is imminent .
Anyone want to set up a poll what do with him ?
It better have a cowboyNeal option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are the one that has sales demanding we support old browsers.
Right men, we got its location, capture is imminent.
Anyone want to set up a poll what do with him?
It better have a cowboyNeal option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788252</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1263582900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's probably plenty of stuff that still requires IE6 to work.<br><br>For example: HP's iLO stuff appears to be very browser type, version and configuration sensitive. We've had some problems using HP iLO with IE8.<br><br>Yes it works with IE7, but in our company the class of machines that upgraded to IE7 would be on IE8 by now (or would soon be).<br><br>The rest would still be on IE6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's probably plenty of stuff that still requires IE6 to work.For example : HP 's iLO stuff appears to be very browser type , version and configuration sensitive .
We 've had some problems using HP iLO with IE8.Yes it works with IE7 , but in our company the class of machines that upgraded to IE7 would be on IE8 by now ( or would soon be ) .The rest would still be on IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's probably plenty of stuff that still requires IE6 to work.For example: HP's iLO stuff appears to be very browser type, version and configuration sensitive.
We've had some problems using HP iLO with IE8.Yes it works with IE7, but in our company the class of machines that upgraded to IE7 would be on IE8 by now (or would soon be).The rest would still be on IE6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787588</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1263575280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who else suspects that Google is stepping up internal use of Chrome?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who else suspects that Google is stepping up internal use of Chrome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who else suspects that Google is stepping up internal use of Chrome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789400</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263646380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because IE6 is still a very widely used browser and therefore every large internet company needs it around to test stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because IE6 is still a very widely used browser and therefore every large internet company needs it around to test stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because IE6 is still a very widely used browser and therefore every large internet company needs it around to test stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788118</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1263581100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet you test your sites on IE6.   Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random\_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random\_vulnerable browser.   I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.</p></div><p>No, because most <b>average</b> computer users will simply not visit the site again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet you test your sites on IE6 .
Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $ random \ _unsupported browser , or better yet the same one you give to $ random \ _vulnerable browser .
I 'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments , non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.No , because most average computer users will simply not visit the site again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet you test your sites on IE6.
Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random\_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random\_vulnerable browser.
I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.No, because most average computer users will simply not visit the site again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787764</id>
	<title>Re:A Question</title>
	<author>DeadPixels</author>
	<datestamp>1263577200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you seen any of the new IBM commercials? We have to "build a smarter electrical grid", and if that means connecting our generators to 4chan, then so be it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen any of the new IBM commercials ?
We have to " build a smarter electrical grid " , and if that means connecting our generators to 4chan , then so be it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen any of the new IBM commercials?
We have to "build a smarter electrical grid", and if that means connecting our generators to 4chan, then so be it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788534</id>
	<title>This is a wise course</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1263674400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as after work you keep your skills up on modern tech, taking the customer's money to do the stupid thing is a wise course.  Advising them, giving the chance, telling them that it's stupid is the moral choice but if not asked there's no shame in doing what you can with what you've got.
</p><p>Actually there's an opportunity here - but I'm not going to enumerate it because then you'll be competing with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as after work you keep your skills up on modern tech , taking the customer 's money to do the stupid thing is a wise course .
Advising them , giving the chance , telling them that it 's stupid is the moral choice but if not asked there 's no shame in doing what you can with what you 've got .
Actually there 's an opportunity here - but I 'm not going to enumerate it because then you 'll be competing with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as after work you keep your skills up on modern tech, taking the customer's money to do the stupid thing is a wise course.
Advising them, giving the chance, telling them that it's stupid is the moral choice but if not asked there's no shame in doing what you can with what you've got.
Actually there's an opportunity here - but I'm not going to enumerate it because then you'll be competing with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790556</id>
	<title>Re:Sorta like irony. Sorta.</title>
	<author>LordThyGod</author>
	<datestamp>1263659820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not at all. This is the MS legacy: install XP, then install Firefox (Chrome, Safari, whatever). But you can't uninstall IE, and if you never use it, its sitting there at 6. And the exploit does not require actively opening the browser, just that its installed. One more reason to run away from anything from MS.

How MS got away with claiming that the browser is so integral to the OS that it can't be uninstalled, is one of the great mysteries of the universe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not at all .
This is the MS legacy : install XP , then install Firefox ( Chrome , Safari , whatever ) .
But you ca n't uninstall IE , and if you never use it , its sitting there at 6 .
And the exploit does not require actively opening the browser , just that its installed .
One more reason to run away from anything from MS . How MS got away with claiming that the browser is so integral to the OS that it ca n't be uninstalled , is one of the great mysteries of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not at all.
This is the MS legacy: install XP, then install Firefox (Chrome, Safari, whatever).
But you can't uninstall IE, and if you never use it, its sitting there at 6.
And the exploit does not require actively opening the browser, just that its installed.
One more reason to run away from anything from MS.

How MS got away with claiming that the browser is so integral to the OS that it can't be uninstalled, is one of the great mysteries of the universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788470</id>
	<title>Google just wanted to pick a fight with China</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1263672720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can not believe that Google, with all of its vast resources and years online, that a few email accounts getting hacked all of sudden set them off to pull out of China. They are pretending to the press as if this is something special or new on the internet that China is doing, or that these couple of "attacks" from China are too much. Google has got to be just hammered by Chinese attackers, and they make it sound like no other gmail account has ever been hacked. I bet they get thousands of illegally hacked email accounts a day for all kinds of people, from all over the World, by all kinds of means. Hell, I blocked Chinese ISP blocks and cut down on my little server being attacked and spam by about half.</p><p>So, what in particular is suddenly special about this one in relation to China?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not believe that Google , with all of its vast resources and years online , that a few email accounts getting hacked all of sudden set them off to pull out of China .
They are pretending to the press as if this is something special or new on the internet that China is doing , or that these couple of " attacks " from China are too much .
Google has got to be just hammered by Chinese attackers , and they make it sound like no other gmail account has ever been hacked .
I bet they get thousands of illegally hacked email accounts a day for all kinds of people , from all over the World , by all kinds of means .
Hell , I blocked Chinese ISP blocks and cut down on my little server being attacked and spam by about half.So , what in particular is suddenly special about this one in relation to China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can not believe that Google, with all of its vast resources and years online, that a few email accounts getting hacked all of sudden set them off to pull out of China.
They are pretending to the press as if this is something special or new on the internet that China is doing, or that these couple of "attacks" from China are too much.
Google has got to be just hammered by Chinese attackers, and they make it sound like no other gmail account has ever been hacked.
I bet they get thousands of illegally hacked email accounts a day for all kinds of people, from all over the World, by all kinds of means.
Hell, I blocked Chinese ISP blocks and cut down on my little server being attacked and spam by about half.So, what in particular is suddenly special about this one in relation to China?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787952</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1263579120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still use and have to support it. MS still also supports it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still use and have to support it .
MS still also supports it .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still use and have to support it.
MS still also supports it.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787998</id>
	<title>How to mitigate IE6 security issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263579540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See how to mitigate the IE6 vulnerability using Group Policy here http://www.grouppolicy.biz/2010/01/how-to-mitigate-kb979352-a-k-a-google-china-security-vulnerability-using-group-policy/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See how to mitigate the IE6 vulnerability using Group Policy here http : //www.grouppolicy.biz/2010/01/how-to-mitigate-kb979352-a-k-a-google-china-security-vulnerability-using-group-policy/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See how to mitigate the IE6 vulnerability using Group Policy here http://www.grouppolicy.biz/2010/01/how-to-mitigate-kb979352-a-k-a-google-china-security-vulnerability-using-group-policy/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788336</id>
	<title>Re:IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The exploit was quite clearly effective against all versions of IE.  It was least effective against IE8, but it does work if you disable DEP.
</p><p>I would ask if IE6 was necessary, but today I was configuring HP blades.  It appears that not only is IE required for the iLO Advanced Remote Console / Virtual Connect Manager task, but IE6 is to accomplish this task with the least difficulty.  IE8 works in compatibility mode for most things (remote graphic console through Active-X, menus and javascript), but not for all.  Remarkably Firefox was required to enable some menu pulldowns, though it's not compatible with most of the rest of it - so the task requires at least two modern browsers.  It was necessary to engage both IE8 and Firefox, and I'm still not sure if all the options available in IE6 were available.
</p><p>Having an XP client with IE6 would have been handy for this task, and in the future I'll have one in a VM for that.  But today it was a straight nuisance.
</p><p>HP needs to get their act together with regards to web admin of their servers.  If you can't admin an HP server over the web, they have no compelling advantage over Dell.  Standards compliance is the best way to solve this problem but somehow I doubt they'll choose that course.
</p><p>/anon for obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The exploit was quite clearly effective against all versions of IE .
It was least effective against IE8 , but it does work if you disable DEP .
I would ask if IE6 was necessary , but today I was configuring HP blades .
It appears that not only is IE required for the iLO Advanced Remote Console / Virtual Connect Manager task , but IE6 is to accomplish this task with the least difficulty .
IE8 works in compatibility mode for most things ( remote graphic console through Active-X , menus and javascript ) , but not for all .
Remarkably Firefox was required to enable some menu pulldowns , though it 's not compatible with most of the rest of it - so the task requires at least two modern browsers .
It was necessary to engage both IE8 and Firefox , and I 'm still not sure if all the options available in IE6 were available .
Having an XP client with IE6 would have been handy for this task , and in the future I 'll have one in a VM for that .
But today it was a straight nuisance .
HP needs to get their act together with regards to web admin of their servers .
If you ca n't admin an HP server over the web , they have no compelling advantage over Dell .
Standards compliance is the best way to solve this problem but somehow I doubt they 'll choose that course .
/anon for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The exploit was quite clearly effective against all versions of IE.
It was least effective against IE8, but it does work if you disable DEP.
I would ask if IE6 was necessary, but today I was configuring HP blades.
It appears that not only is IE required for the iLO Advanced Remote Console / Virtual Connect Manager task, but IE6 is to accomplish this task with the least difficulty.
IE8 works in compatibility mode for most things (remote graphic console through Active-X, menus and javascript), but not for all.
Remarkably Firefox was required to enable some menu pulldowns, though it's not compatible with most of the rest of it - so the task requires at least two modern browsers.
It was necessary to engage both IE8 and Firefox, and I'm still not sure if all the options available in IE6 were available.
Having an XP client with IE6 would have been handy for this task, and in the future I'll have one in a VM for that.
But today it was a straight nuisance.
HP needs to get their act together with regards to web admin of their servers.
If you can't admin an HP server over the web, they have no compelling advantage over Dell.
Standards compliance is the best way to solve this problem but somehow I doubt they'll choose that course.
/anon for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30796164</id>
	<title>Fear, the Patch Tuesday of the Mind</title>
	<author>nightcats</author>
	<datestamp>1263665700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a para-geek (a tech writer, actually), so don't understand the technical aspects of this. But I do sense the well-known fear that keeps products like IE6 running over corporate LANs. As I said <a href="http://dailyrevolution.net/?p=9193" title="dailyrevolution.net" rel="nofollow">in this post</a> [dailyrevolution.net]:<blockquote><div><p>...the corporate mind is going to have to learn some courage if it is to discover its conscience. &ldquo;Do no evil&rdquo; (Google&rsquo;s motto) is not enough, even if its intent is genuine. Aversion betrays an underlying fear; it is the software patch, the unending trail of ineffectual security updates, of the mind. It would be far better to simply say, &ldquo;do what&rsquo;s right.&rdquo;</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a para-geek ( a tech writer , actually ) , so do n't understand the technical aspects of this .
But I do sense the well-known fear that keeps products like IE6 running over corporate LANs .
As I said in this post [ dailyrevolution.net ] : ...the corporate mind is going to have to learn some courage if it is to discover its conscience .
   Do no evil    ( Google    s motto ) is not enough , even if its intent is genuine .
Aversion betrays an underlying fear ; it is the software patch , the unending trail of ineffectual security updates , of the mind .
It would be far better to simply say ,    do what    s right.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a para-geek (a tech writer, actually), so don't understand the technical aspects of this.
But I do sense the well-known fear that keeps products like IE6 running over corporate LANs.
As I said in this post [dailyrevolution.net]:...the corporate mind is going to have to learn some courage if it is to discover its conscience.
“Do no evil” (Google’s motto) is not enough, even if its intent is genuine.
Aversion betrays an underlying fear; it is the software patch, the unending trail of ineffectual security updates, of the mind.
It would be far better to simply say, “do what’s right.”
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586</id>
	<title>A Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263575220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a network engineer or very astute when it comes to security, but I have to wonder why we (America) have our electrical grid online (accessible from say Hainan China) or really any sensitive area online and accessible from the internet, the benefits versus the liabilities seem way out of proportion.<br>The fact that a bit of code can compromise governments is a strong indicator that no one really knows what they are doing in said government, and also begs the question why isn't Microsoft held liable for these issues? Why do we even use Windows for Government systems?<br>Hackers are cutting edge people, the government seems to be dwelling in 1990's tatics and security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a network engineer or very astute when it comes to security , but I have to wonder why we ( America ) have our electrical grid online ( accessible from say Hainan China ) or really any sensitive area online and accessible from the internet , the benefits versus the liabilities seem way out of proportion.The fact that a bit of code can compromise governments is a strong indicator that no one really knows what they are doing in said government , and also begs the question why is n't Microsoft held liable for these issues ?
Why do we even use Windows for Government systems ? Hackers are cutting edge people , the government seems to be dwelling in 1990 's tatics and security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a network engineer or very astute when it comes to security, but I have to wonder why we (America) have our electrical grid online (accessible from say Hainan China) or really any sensitive area online and accessible from the internet, the benefits versus the liabilities seem way out of proportion.The fact that a bit of code can compromise governments is a strong indicator that no one really knows what they are doing in said government, and also begs the question why isn't Microsoft held liable for these issues?
Why do we even use Windows for Government systems?Hackers are cutting edge people, the government seems to be dwelling in 1990's tatics and security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787834</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1263577980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're marketing it all wrong. You need to sell the downloading and installing of the Firefox plugin for IE6...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're marketing it all wrong .
You need to sell the downloading and installing of the Firefox plugin for IE6.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're marketing it all wrong.
You need to sell the downloading and installing of the Firefox plugin for IE6...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788060</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and <b> <i>masturbate all day long.</i> </b> Happy now?</p></div><p>You're doing it wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy , I would probably play WOW , eat pizza and masturbate all day long .
Happy now ? You 're doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and  masturbate all day long.
Happy now?You're doing it wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30794524</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263646380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm afraid if I do that I'll be jobless and unable to pay my mortgage.</p></div><p>You GOT to be kidding! Do you really believe that?? Are you really that worthless to your boss? Or do you only sell yourself as being worth nothing? Do you say yes and amen to everything? Never learned to say no to your boss?<br>Well, after just watching the last episodes of &ldquo;The Middle&rdquo;, I am truly horrified at what you teach each other to do:<br>See yourself as less worth than a dog, and cave to every abuse anyone throws at you.</p><p>I think you are better than that! After all he hired you!<br>You know how some bosses simple &ldquo;expect&rdquo; you to work overtime for no money? That&rsquo;s greedy freeloading. Not in the contract. Period.<br>I could just as well go, and say: &ldquo;Weell, I&rsquo;m sorry boss, but this month you got to pay me 40\% more. Cause of $someLameExcuse.&rdquo; And then he could fear that I quit.<br>You can that just as much, if you consider you of value.</p><p>Man... Why do people always get this the completely wrong way?<br>The best way to get what you want and be in control, is to define reality! Know what you consider to be right and wrong, draw the lines, and stand by them.<br>No, contrary to popular opinion, that&rsquo;s not gonna get you in trouble! Or is your boss in trouble for doing it? No. How do you think he <em>became</em> a leader?<br>Simple: Because people get drawn into your reality, if you act like that. They start to respect you, because &ldquo;Hmm, he does that so naturally... Seems that&rsquo;s just how he&rsquo;s used to be treated.&rdquo; Which funnily is the exact same thing they think when you act all angsty like he&rsquo;s going to fire you tomorrow.</p><p>But just like when you are in the &ldquo;friend&rdquo; zone with a woman (assuming you&rsquo;re a man<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;), once someone is used to how you act, you can&rsquo;t just change it from one day to the other.<br>Find a new job, and get it right from the very beginning!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I, for one, would love to have an employee who can stand up to me and tell me to my face that I&rsquo;m about to run right into a knife. Who has his own opinion. Who is smarter than me in what I hired him for, and expects to be treated as smarter (in that area).<br>Because is there anyone better to put in my place when I die. Or to open a new branch office?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid if I do that I 'll be jobless and unable to pay my mortgage.You GOT to be kidding !
Do you really believe that ? ?
Are you really that worthless to your boss ?
Or do you only sell yourself as being worth nothing ?
Do you say yes and amen to everything ?
Never learned to say no to your boss ? Well , after just watching the last episodes of    The Middle    , I am truly horrified at what you teach each other to do : See yourself as less worth than a dog , and cave to every abuse anyone throws at you.I think you are better than that !
After all he hired you ! You know how some bosses simple    expect    you to work overtime for no money ?
That    s greedy freeloading .
Not in the contract .
Period.I could just as well go , and say :    Weell , I    m sorry boss , but this month you got to pay me 40 \ % more .
Cause of $ someLameExcuse.    And then he could fear that I quit.You can that just as much , if you consider you of value.Man... Why do people always get this the completely wrong way ? The best way to get what you want and be in control , is to define reality !
Know what you consider to be right and wrong , draw the lines , and stand by them.No , contrary to popular opinion , that    s not gon na get you in trouble !
Or is your boss in trouble for doing it ?
No. How do you think he became a leader ? Simple : Because people get drawn into your reality , if you act like that .
They start to respect you , because    Hmm , he does that so naturally... Seems that    s just how he    s used to be treated.    Which funnily is the exact same thing they think when you act all angsty like he    s going to fire you tomorrow.But just like when you are in the    friend    zone with a woman ( assuming you    re a man ; ) , once someone is used to how you act , you can    t just change it from one day to the other.Find a new job , and get it right from the very beginning !
: ) I , for one , would love to have an employee who can stand up to me and tell me to my face that I    m about to run right into a knife .
Who has his own opinion .
Who is smarter than me in what I hired him for , and expects to be treated as smarter ( in that area ) .Because is there anyone better to put in my place when I die .
Or to open a new branch office ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid if I do that I'll be jobless and unable to pay my mortgage.You GOT to be kidding!
Do you really believe that??
Are you really that worthless to your boss?
Or do you only sell yourself as being worth nothing?
Do you say yes and amen to everything?
Never learned to say no to your boss?Well, after just watching the last episodes of “The Middle”, I am truly horrified at what you teach each other to do:See yourself as less worth than a dog, and cave to every abuse anyone throws at you.I think you are better than that!
After all he hired you!You know how some bosses simple “expect” you to work overtime for no money?
That’s greedy freeloading.
Not in the contract.
Period.I could just as well go, and say: “Weell, I’m sorry boss, but this month you got to pay me 40\% more.
Cause of $someLameExcuse.” And then he could fear that I quit.You can that just as much, if you consider you of value.Man... Why do people always get this the completely wrong way?The best way to get what you want and be in control, is to define reality!
Know what you consider to be right and wrong, draw the lines, and stand by them.No, contrary to popular opinion, that’s not gonna get you in trouble!
Or is your boss in trouble for doing it?
No. How do you think he became a leader?Simple: Because people get drawn into your reality, if you act like that.
They start to respect you, because “Hmm, he does that so naturally... Seems that’s just how he’s used to be treated.” Which funnily is the exact same thing they think when you act all angsty like he’s going to fire you tomorrow.But just like when you are in the “friend” zone with a woman (assuming you’re a man ;), once someone is used to how you act, you can’t just change it from one day to the other.Find a new job, and get it right from the very beginning!
:)I, for one, would love to have an employee who can stand up to me and tell me to my face that I’m about to run right into a knife.
Who has his own opinion.
Who is smarter than me in what I hired him for, and expects to be treated as smarter (in that area).Because is there anyone better to put in my place when I die.
Or to open a new branch office?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263574560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet you test your sites on IE6.   Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random\_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random\_vulnerable browser.   I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet you test your sites on IE6 .
Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $ random \ _unsupported browser , or better yet the same one you give to $ random \ _vulnerable browser .
I 'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments , non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet you test your sites on IE6.
Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random\_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random\_vulnerable browser.
I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30791094</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>ckclark</author>
	<datestamp>1263664200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and masturbate all day long. Happy now?</p></div><p>Everyone seems to be talking as if the problem stops at having IE6 installed.  To be exploited, the more stupidity is required.  Minimally, the user would have to launch IE6 and visit a malicious web site and probably do a couple of other things as well...</p><p>So maybe someone was doing exactly what you say...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy , I would probably play WOW , eat pizza and masturbate all day long .
Happy now ? Everyone seems to be talking as if the problem stops at having IE6 installed .
To be exploited , the more stupidity is required .
Minimally , the user would have to launch IE6 and visit a malicious web site and probably do a couple of other things as well...So maybe someone was doing exactly what you say... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and masturbate all day long.
Happy now?Everyone seems to be talking as if the problem stops at having IE6 installed.
To be exploited, the more stupidity is required.
Minimally, the user would have to launch IE6 and visit a malicious web site and probably do a couple of other things as well...So maybe someone was doing exactly what you say... ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790620</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>lieden</author>
	<datestamp>1263660300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Remember, Google also employs lawyers, accountants and any number of non-dev staff.
<br>I would bet that most IE testing is done in the VM world, but not every Google employee works in tech - a lot of them probably just want Quickbooks and Exchange/Outlook to work. Maybe that was a hole in the armour and lead to an attack vector.
<br>
<br>It's another issue that these people would have access to raw Google data. That's no good. But I doubt there's any significant number of the people one typically thinks of as a Google employee that uses IE.
<br>
<br>Don't they mostly run linux on desktop(using VM for testing)? (not positive about that one)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , Google also employs lawyers , accountants and any number of non-dev staff .
I would bet that most IE testing is done in the VM world , but not every Google employee works in tech - a lot of them probably just want Quickbooks and Exchange/Outlook to work .
Maybe that was a hole in the armour and lead to an attack vector .
It 's another issue that these people would have access to raw Google data .
That 's no good .
But I doubt there 's any significant number of the people one typically thinks of as a Google employee that uses IE .
Do n't they mostly run linux on desktop ( using VM for testing ) ?
( not positive about that one )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, Google also employs lawyers, accountants and any number of non-dev staff.
I would bet that most IE testing is done in the VM world, but not every Google employee works in tech - a lot of them probably just want Quickbooks and Exchange/Outlook to work.
Maybe that was a hole in the armour and lead to an attack vector.
It's another issue that these people would have access to raw Google data.
That's no good.
But I doubt there's any significant number of the people one typically thinks of as a Google employee that uses IE.
Don't they mostly run linux on desktop(using VM for testing)?
(not positive about that one)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789430</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Xaduurv</author>
	<datestamp>1263646800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and masturbate all day long. Happy now?</p></div><p>You have no imagination.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy , I would probably play WOW , eat pizza and masturbate all day long .
Happy now ? You have no imagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and masturbate all day long.
Happy now?You have no imagination.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790016</id>
	<title>Shrug, okay, lets make it secure.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263654300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making a country secure is easy.
</p><p>Everyone mandatory implanted ID that can't be removed or altered without dying, say a chip implanted in the brain that extends barbs.
</p><p>Tracking posts everywhere. All travel recorded and logged.
</p><p>1 computer system, can only be activated with ID. No 3rd party software let alone your own stuff, every access is recorded and logged for 10 years minimum.
</p><p>Should I go on? It is easy to implement and will eliminate all security problems. Feel free to take these ideas for when you run for election.
</p><p>Security is easy, freedom and security ain't. To be honest, I prefer my government to be a bit slow and inefficient. The alternative is far more scarier.
</p><p>People are so upset about that illegal immigrant who got shot on the tube when he tried to run. I would be far more worried if that guy had NEVER been able to make it into the country or if they had shot the right guy with a sniper efficiently. The whole mess shows there is still freedom. Freedom to get shot for sure, but also the freedom for journalists to still find leaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making a country secure is easy .
Everyone mandatory implanted ID that ca n't be removed or altered without dying , say a chip implanted in the brain that extends barbs .
Tracking posts everywhere .
All travel recorded and logged .
1 computer system , can only be activated with ID .
No 3rd party software let alone your own stuff , every access is recorded and logged for 10 years minimum .
Should I go on ?
It is easy to implement and will eliminate all security problems .
Feel free to take these ideas for when you run for election .
Security is easy , freedom and security ai n't .
To be honest , I prefer my government to be a bit slow and inefficient .
The alternative is far more scarier .
People are so upset about that illegal immigrant who got shot on the tube when he tried to run .
I would be far more worried if that guy had NEVER been able to make it into the country or if they had shot the right guy with a sniper efficiently .
The whole mess shows there is still freedom .
Freedom to get shot for sure , but also the freedom for journalists to still find leaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making a country secure is easy.
Everyone mandatory implanted ID that can't be removed or altered without dying, say a chip implanted in the brain that extends barbs.
Tracking posts everywhere.
All travel recorded and logged.
1 computer system, can only be activated with ID.
No 3rd party software let alone your own stuff, every access is recorded and logged for 10 years minimum.
Should I go on?
It is easy to implement and will eliminate all security problems.
Feel free to take these ideas for when you run for election.
Security is easy, freedom and security ain't.
To be honest, I prefer my government to be a bit slow and inefficient.
The alternative is far more scarier.
People are so upset about that illegal immigrant who got shot on the tube when he tried to run.
I would be far more worried if that guy had NEVER been able to make it into the country or if they had shot the right guy with a sniper efficiently.
The whole mess shows there is still freedom.
Freedom to get shot for sure, but also the freedom for journalists to still find leaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788998</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263640800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only run it on Wine. And I still don't feel safe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:\</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only run it on Wine .
And I still do n't feel safe : \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only run it on Wine.
And I still don't feel safe :\</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788384</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even more shocking to me, after last December's SAP system *upgrade*, our company's customer relation software only works on IE6, IT officially announced that IE7 and later are not supported. We are asked to downgrade out browser to IE6.</p><p>We are a big tech company in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more shocking to me , after last December 's SAP system * upgrade * , our company 's customer relation software only works on IE6 , IT officially announced that IE7 and later are not supported .
We are asked to downgrade out browser to IE6.We are a big tech company in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more shocking to me, after last December's SAP system *upgrade*, our company's customer relation software only works on IE6, IT officially announced that IE7 and later are not supported.
We are asked to downgrade out browser to IE6.We are a big tech company in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787626</id>
	<title>Internet Explorer 6 is older than the Euro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263575820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Next time somebody tells you that their organisation can't switch from Internet Explorer 6 because of legacy intranet applications, point out that virtually all of Europe switched from their own centuries-old currency to the Euro in less time than it's taking to get rid of Internet Explorer 6.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time somebody tells you that their organisation ca n't switch from Internet Explorer 6 because of legacy intranet applications , point out that virtually all of Europe switched from their own centuries-old currency to the Euro in less time than it 's taking to get rid of Internet Explorer 6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Next time somebody tells you that their organisation can't switch from Internet Explorer 6 because of legacy intranet applications, point out that virtually all of Europe switched from their own centuries-old currency to the Euro in less time than it's taking to get rid of Internet Explorer 6.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263575460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet you test your sites on IE6. Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random\_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random\_vulnerable browser</p></div><p>I'm afraid if I do that I'll be jobless and unable to pay my mortgage.</p><p>My company has high-profile clients who run IE6. I've lectured on-and-on about what a terrible browser IE6 is. But at the end of the day, if SVP of Marketing is running IE6 because of their IT department, and they look at the site and it's broken, then guess who they get to blame?</p><p>I happen to do freelance work on the side (for extra s*its-and-giggles), and when I do that I run the show and basically say "If you want IE6 support, you have to pay $X,000 extra." and honestly, if the project is not that challenging I will just refuse to take it regardless of how many zeros are in-front of the decimals on the check.</p><p>I \_hate\_ IE6 with a passion (and 7 and somewhat 8 for that matter), but I have to do what I have to do to pay mortgage, keep the lights on and feed the kids.</p><p>It's not \_that\_ self demising. The main reason I get up and go to work everyday is to provide for my family. I may enjoy it and I may not sometimes, but that's not the question, it's what gets the job done for my (our) clients that will pay for the life-style I've chosen to take.</p><p>If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and masturbate all day long. Happy now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet you test your sites on IE6 .
Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $ random \ _unsupported browser , or better yet the same one you give to $ random \ _vulnerable browserI 'm afraid if I do that I 'll be jobless and unable to pay my mortgage.My company has high-profile clients who run IE6 .
I 've lectured on-and-on about what a terrible browser IE6 is .
But at the end of the day , if SVP of Marketing is running IE6 because of their IT department , and they look at the site and it 's broken , then guess who they get to blame ? I happen to do freelance work on the side ( for extra s * its-and-giggles ) , and when I do that I run the show and basically say " If you want IE6 support , you have to pay $ X,000 extra .
" and honestly , if the project is not that challenging I will just refuse to take it regardless of how many zeros are in-front of the decimals on the check.I \ _hate \ _ IE6 with a passion ( and 7 and somewhat 8 for that matter ) , but I have to do what I have to do to pay mortgage , keep the lights on and feed the kids.It 's not \ _that \ _ self demising .
The main reason I get up and go to work everyday is to provide for my family .
I may enjoy it and I may not sometimes , but that 's not the question , it 's what gets the job done for my ( our ) clients that will pay for the life-style I 've chosen to take.If it was up to me to do things I enjoy , I would probably play WOW , eat pizza and masturbate all day long .
Happy now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet you test your sites on IE6.
Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random\_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random\_vulnerable browserI'm afraid if I do that I'll be jobless and unable to pay my mortgage.My company has high-profile clients who run IE6.
I've lectured on-and-on about what a terrible browser IE6 is.
But at the end of the day, if SVP of Marketing is running IE6 because of their IT department, and they look at the site and it's broken, then guess who they get to blame?I happen to do freelance work on the side (for extra s*its-and-giggles), and when I do that I run the show and basically say "If you want IE6 support, you have to pay $X,000 extra.
" and honestly, if the project is not that challenging I will just refuse to take it regardless of how many zeros are in-front of the decimals on the check.I \_hate\_ IE6 with a passion (and 7 and somewhat 8 for that matter), but I have to do what I have to do to pay mortgage, keep the lights on and feed the kids.It's not \_that\_ self demising.
The main reason I get up and go to work everyday is to provide for my family.
I may enjoy it and I may not sometimes, but that's not the question, it's what gets the job done for my (our) clients that will pay for the life-style I've chosen to take.If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and masturbate all day long.
Happy now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787518</id>
	<title>Thank god I run IE4!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263574140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like running IE4 on windows 95 has paid off....finally! Now if only active desktop worked properly...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like running IE4 on windows 95 has paid off....finally !
Now if only active desktop worked properly.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like running IE4 on windows 95 has paid off....finally!
Now if only active desktop worked properly...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30791318</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263665880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All the legacy IE6 users I've met tend to be government, non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.</i></p><p>Ha. My company's bank website for business clients is a POS written with a crappy java app called <a href="http://www.entrust.com/internet-security-software/faqs.htm" title="entrust.com" rel="nofollow">TruePass from Entrust</a> [entrust.com].</p><p>It is piece of crap that requires IE6 or IE5.5, and won't work with web proxies.</p><p>The bank is Scotiabank, the 3rd largest bank in Canada (and bigger than Citibank &amp; US Bancorp). This is only the case for their business clients - they are forced to use the <a href="https://www.scotiaconnect.scotiabank.com/" title="scotiabank.com" rel="nofollow">"Scotiaconnect"</a> [scotiabank.com] service. They even have a helpful <a href="https://www.scotiaconnect.scotiabank.com/sco-tp/exclude/browserdetect.jsp" title="scotiabank.com" rel="nofollow">browser detection webpage</a> [scotiabank.com] telling you how crappy their website is and requires ancient versions of IE.</p><p>Scotiabank's individual clients have a normal html-based website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the legacy IE6 users I 've met tend to be government , non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.Ha .
My company 's bank website for business clients is a POS written with a crappy java app called TruePass from Entrust [ entrust.com ] .It is piece of crap that requires IE6 or IE5.5 , and wo n't work with web proxies.The bank is Scotiabank , the 3rd largest bank in Canada ( and bigger than Citibank &amp; US Bancorp ) .
This is only the case for their business clients - they are forced to use the " Scotiaconnect " [ scotiabank.com ] service .
They even have a helpful browser detection webpage [ scotiabank.com ] telling you how crappy their website is and requires ancient versions of IE.Scotiabank 's individual clients have a normal html-based website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the legacy IE6 users I've met tend to be government, non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.Ha.
My company's bank website for business clients is a POS written with a crappy java app called TruePass from Entrust [entrust.com].It is piece of crap that requires IE6 or IE5.5, and won't work with web proxies.The bank is Scotiabank, the 3rd largest bank in Canada (and bigger than Citibank &amp; US Bancorp).
This is only the case for their business clients - they are forced to use the "Scotiaconnect" [scotiabank.com] service.
They even have a helpful browser detection webpage [scotiabank.com] telling you how crappy their website is and requires ancient versions of IE.Scotiabank's individual clients have a normal html-based website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787658</id>
	<title>IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263576120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it is writen to say could possibly be modified to work with newer versions of IE, I find that a little unlikely considering the more recent track record of IE's beefing of security. Unfortunately the people writing these articles tend to have bias towards IE as a whole and not just against the mess that IE6 was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is writen to say could possibly be modified to work with newer versions of IE , I find that a little unlikely considering the more recent track record of IE 's beefing of security .
Unfortunately the people writing these articles tend to have bias towards IE as a whole and not just against the mess that IE6 was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is writen to say could possibly be modified to work with newer versions of IE, I find that a little unlikely considering the more recent track record of IE's beefing of security.
Unfortunately the people writing these articles tend to have bias towards IE as a whole and not just against the mess that IE6 was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30795088</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263651720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My company has high-profile clients who run IE6. I've lectured on-and-on about what a terrible browser IE6 is. But at the end of the day, if SVP of Marketing is running IE6 because of their IT department, and they look at the site and it's broken, then guess who they get to blame?</p></div><p>Then your company needs to advise that you will have to charge more money to support a deprecated and standards non-compliant application.<br>We had a vendor's application break when we updated to the most recent version of IE (which is much more standards compliant). Their solution? "We don't support any version of IE past 6, so you'll have to downgrade. No we don't support any other browser". Basically they have themselves locked in to IE6-specific features. Needless to say, we dropped that vendor on the spot and are running with someone who puts out standards-compliant web apps that don't require an outdated and nearly end-of-life browser (which is nearly impossible to downgrade to).</p><p>Word of advice to web devs, if you are locked into an IE-only solution you need to pull your heads out of your asses fast. The only thing that requires IE only is use of ActiveX controls, which you really should avoid at all costs anyhow. Making a page that does not use ActiveX but which still doesn't work in non-IE browsers is simply a matter of stupidity, incompetence, or both.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My company has high-profile clients who run IE6 .
I 've lectured on-and-on about what a terrible browser IE6 is .
But at the end of the day , if SVP of Marketing is running IE6 because of their IT department , and they look at the site and it 's broken , then guess who they get to blame ? Then your company needs to advise that you will have to charge more money to support a deprecated and standards non-compliant application.We had a vendor 's application break when we updated to the most recent version of IE ( which is much more standards compliant ) .
Their solution ?
" We do n't support any version of IE past 6 , so you 'll have to downgrade .
No we do n't support any other browser " .
Basically they have themselves locked in to IE6-specific features .
Needless to say , we dropped that vendor on the spot and are running with someone who puts out standards-compliant web apps that do n't require an outdated and nearly end-of-life browser ( which is nearly impossible to downgrade to ) .Word of advice to web devs , if you are locked into an IE-only solution you need to pull your heads out of your asses fast .
The only thing that requires IE only is use of ActiveX controls , which you really should avoid at all costs anyhow .
Making a page that does not use ActiveX but which still does n't work in non-IE browsers is simply a matter of stupidity , incompetence , or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company has high-profile clients who run IE6.
I've lectured on-and-on about what a terrible browser IE6 is.
But at the end of the day, if SVP of Marketing is running IE6 because of their IT department, and they look at the site and it's broken, then guess who they get to blame?Then your company needs to advise that you will have to charge more money to support a deprecated and standards non-compliant application.We had a vendor's application break when we updated to the most recent version of IE (which is much more standards compliant).
Their solution?
"We don't support any version of IE past 6, so you'll have to downgrade.
No we don't support any other browser".
Basically they have themselves locked in to IE6-specific features.
Needless to say, we dropped that vendor on the spot and are running with someone who puts out standards-compliant web apps that don't require an outdated and nearly end-of-life browser (which is nearly impossible to downgrade to).Word of advice to web devs, if you are locked into an IE-only solution you need to pull your heads out of your asses fast.
The only thing that requires IE only is use of ActiveX controls, which you really should avoid at all costs anyhow.
Making a page that does not use ActiveX but which still doesn't work in non-IE browsers is simply a matter of stupidity, incompetence, or both.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787634</id>
	<title>Video of the Exploit in Action</title>
	<author>danielkennedy74</author>
	<datestamp>1263575880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The following links to an example of using this vulnerability in Metasploit to compromise a user's PC, in essence what happened to users at Google and some 30 other companies via bad actors assumed to be Chinese Nationals:

<a href="http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2010/01/the-aurora-ie-exploit-in-action/" title="praetorianprefect.com" rel="nofollow">http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2010/01/the-aurora-ie-exploit-in-action/</a> [praetorianprefect.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The following links to an example of using this vulnerability in Metasploit to compromise a user 's PC , in essence what happened to users at Google and some 30 other companies via bad actors assumed to be Chinese Nationals : http : //praetorianprefect.com/archives/2010/01/the-aurora-ie-exploit-in-action/ [ praetorianprefect.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The following links to an example of using this vulnerability in Metasploit to compromise a user's PC, in essence what happened to users at Google and some 30 other companies via bad actors assumed to be Chinese Nationals:

http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2010/01/the-aurora-ie-exploit-in-action/ [praetorianprefect.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788160</id>
	<title>Re:IE6</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1263581580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While it is writen to say could possibly be modified to work with newer versions of IE, I find that a little unlikely considering the more recent track record of IE's beefing of security. Unfortunately the people writing these articles tend to have bias towards IE as a whole and not just against the mess that IE6 was.</p></div><p>Really? What do you base that on?

</p><p>- First, there have already been a ton of exploits for IE7 and IE8 - and even some patches.

</p><p>- Second, Microsoft never seemed to say that IE7 or IE8 were not vulnerable. They very carefully said this instead:
<br>"At this time, we are aware of limited, active attacks attempting to use this vulnerability against Internet Explorer 6. <b>We</b> have not <b>seen</b> attacks against other <b>affected</b> versions of Internet Explorer.&rdquo; &ndash; Microsoft.

</p><p>That states there are other affected versions... but <b>Microsoft</b> hasn't seen attacks against them. I could care less what Microsoft has seen... they also "saw" XP and IE6 as secure (pre Service Pack 1).
</p><p>It also means the other affected browsers are... IE4? IE5? IE7? IE8? I wonder which ones of those are the ones they are talking about? I could almost bet you that it's not a pre-IE6 browser that they are talking about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is writen to say could possibly be modified to work with newer versions of IE , I find that a little unlikely considering the more recent track record of IE 's beefing of security .
Unfortunately the people writing these articles tend to have bias towards IE as a whole and not just against the mess that IE6 was.Really ?
What do you base that on ?
- First , there have already been a ton of exploits for IE7 and IE8 - and even some patches .
- Second , Microsoft never seemed to say that IE7 or IE8 were not vulnerable .
They very carefully said this instead : " At this time , we are aware of limited , active attacks attempting to use this vulnerability against Internet Explorer 6 .
We have not seen attacks against other affected versions of Internet Explorer.       Microsoft .
That states there are other affected versions... but Microsoft has n't seen attacks against them .
I could care less what Microsoft has seen... they also " saw " XP and IE6 as secure ( pre Service Pack 1 ) .
It also means the other affected browsers are... IE4 ? IE5 ?
IE7 ? IE8 ?
I wonder which ones of those are the ones they are talking about ?
I could almost bet you that it 's not a pre-IE6 browser that they are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is writen to say could possibly be modified to work with newer versions of IE, I find that a little unlikely considering the more recent track record of IE's beefing of security.
Unfortunately the people writing these articles tend to have bias towards IE as a whole and not just against the mess that IE6 was.Really?
What do you base that on?
- First, there have already been a ton of exploits for IE7 and IE8 - and even some patches.
- Second, Microsoft never seemed to say that IE7 or IE8 were not vulnerable.
They very carefully said this instead:
"At this time, we are aware of limited, active attacks attempting to use this vulnerability against Internet Explorer 6.
We have not seen attacks against other affected versions of Internet Explorer.” – Microsoft.
That states there are other affected versions... but Microsoft hasn't seen attacks against them.
I could care less what Microsoft has seen... they also "saw" XP and IE6 as secure (pre Service Pack 1).
It also means the other affected browsers are... IE4? IE5?
IE7? IE8?
I wonder which ones of those are the ones they are talking about?
I could almost bet you that it's not a pre-IE6 browser that they are talking about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788618</id>
	<title>Re:A Question</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1263633180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IBM had monopoly issues, so they spun off their desktop to Microsoft via a trusted known, wealthy family name, Gates.<br>
The sort of people who understand IBM dealing with ww2 Germany and medical clinics for the 'poor'.<br>
Microsoft then went after schools and trained a generation of young dumb mouse clickers.<br>Sadly they have now grown up and infected most of the US network from point of sale to your power systems.<br>Some parts of your government do not trust MS, but then they do not trust you.<br>The benefits are an average American can point and click.  Short term profit versus the cost of Unix ect help too.<br>  As for liabilities?  At first MS was not networked, a dos box printing or counting, or networked to a real OS.<br>Later everybody had a go at this cheap MS code thing and networked.<br>
What the US saved in rapid cheap roll out they are now going to have to watch crumble or be taken over.<br>
Dont worry MS has cloud computing and mobile grade back ups and real security now, Bill ect, said so.<br>
On the flip side, MS selling is great for the US gov.  As China shows, if google can be hacked via MS, what has the CIA, NSA, FBI ect been doing with its world wide 'telco' networks, 24/7 for many years?<br>
As for your electrical grid, they respond to their shareholder needs, not you the consumer and MS was fine.<br>If it breaks, you will pay per year to upgrade.<br>If your lights are out and your CC number is misused, hire a lawyer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM had monopoly issues , so they spun off their desktop to Microsoft via a trusted known , wealthy family name , Gates .
The sort of people who understand IBM dealing with ww2 Germany and medical clinics for the 'poor' .
Microsoft then went after schools and trained a generation of young dumb mouse clickers.Sadly they have now grown up and infected most of the US network from point of sale to your power systems.Some parts of your government do not trust MS , but then they do not trust you.The benefits are an average American can point and click .
Short term profit versus the cost of Unix ect help too .
As for liabilities ?
At first MS was not networked , a dos box printing or counting , or networked to a real OS.Later everybody had a go at this cheap MS code thing and networked .
What the US saved in rapid cheap roll out they are now going to have to watch crumble or be taken over .
Dont worry MS has cloud computing and mobile grade back ups and real security now , Bill ect , said so .
On the flip side , MS selling is great for the US gov .
As China shows , if google can be hacked via MS , what has the CIA , NSA , FBI ect been doing with its world wide 'telco ' networks , 24/7 for many years ?
As for your electrical grid , they respond to their shareholder needs , not you the consumer and MS was fine.If it breaks , you will pay per year to upgrade.If your lights are out and your CC number is misused , hire a lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM had monopoly issues, so they spun off their desktop to Microsoft via a trusted known, wealthy family name, Gates.
The sort of people who understand IBM dealing with ww2 Germany and medical clinics for the 'poor'.
Microsoft then went after schools and trained a generation of young dumb mouse clickers.Sadly they have now grown up and infected most of the US network from point of sale to your power systems.Some parts of your government do not trust MS, but then they do not trust you.The benefits are an average American can point and click.
Short term profit versus the cost of Unix ect help too.
As for liabilities?
At first MS was not networked, a dos box printing or counting, or networked to a real OS.Later everybody had a go at this cheap MS code thing and networked.
What the US saved in rapid cheap roll out they are now going to have to watch crumble or be taken over.
Dont worry MS has cloud computing and mobile grade back ups and real security now, Bill ect, said so.
On the flip side, MS selling is great for the US gov.
As China shows, if google can be hacked via MS, what has the CIA, NSA, FBI ect been doing with its world wide 'telco' networks, 24/7 for many years?
As for your electrical grid, they respond to their shareholder needs, not you the consumer and MS was fine.If it breaks, you will pay per year to upgrade.If your lights are out and your CC number is misused, hire a lawyer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30791920</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1263669900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twenty percent of PP's users are still with MSIEv6.  Looking at this in the context of the 80/20 rule of business brings these questions to mind:

</p><ol>
<li>In general, 80\% of customer-related costs are generated by 20\% of the customers. How many of the these MSIEv6 users fall within this 20\% group?</li>
<li>In general, 20\% of customers account for 80\% of sales revenue. How many of this top quintile of customers are using MSIEv6?</li>
<li>As a rule, it is worthwhile to identify the much smaller number of customers who are in the intersection of these two groups and treat them as special cases, red carpet treatment, whether they use MSIEv6 or not. Could this be done in PP's situation?</li>
</ol><p>For many businesses this analysis is going to show that the bottom line could be improved by dropping support for MSIEv6. Pruning customers whose support costs more than the revenues they provide is good business sense (selling at a net loss never makes good sense). There are of course niche markets where this isn't true, such as direct sales of adult incontinence supplies. But even those niches are shrinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twenty percent of PP 's users are still with MSIEv6 .
Looking at this in the context of the 80/20 rule of business brings these questions to mind : In general , 80 \ % of customer-related costs are generated by 20 \ % of the customers .
How many of the these MSIEv6 users fall within this 20 \ % group ?
In general , 20 \ % of customers account for 80 \ % of sales revenue .
How many of this top quintile of customers are using MSIEv6 ?
As a rule , it is worthwhile to identify the much smaller number of customers who are in the intersection of these two groups and treat them as special cases , red carpet treatment , whether they use MSIEv6 or not .
Could this be done in PP 's situation ?
For many businesses this analysis is going to show that the bottom line could be improved by dropping support for MSIEv6 .
Pruning customers whose support costs more than the revenues they provide is good business sense ( selling at a net loss never makes good sense ) .
There are of course niche markets where this is n't true , such as direct sales of adult incontinence supplies .
But even those niches are shrinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twenty percent of PP's users are still with MSIEv6.
Looking at this in the context of the 80/20 rule of business brings these questions to mind:


In general, 80\% of customer-related costs are generated by 20\% of the customers.
How many of the these MSIEv6 users fall within this 20\% group?
In general, 20\% of customers account for 80\% of sales revenue.
How many of this top quintile of customers are using MSIEv6?
As a rule, it is worthwhile to identify the much smaller number of customers who are in the intersection of these two groups and treat them as special cases, red carpet treatment, whether they use MSIEv6 or not.
Could this be done in PP's situation?
For many businesses this analysis is going to show that the bottom line could be improved by dropping support for MSIEv6.
Pruning customers whose support costs more than the revenues they provide is good business sense (selling at a net loss never makes good sense).
There are of course niche markets where this isn't true, such as direct sales of adult incontinence supplies.
But even those niches are shrinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788164</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1263581640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it's not entirely unbelievable to think that there might be a computer somewhere in Google HQ that hasn't used IE in 4-5 years, and if someone went to a website that said it required IE, and you just clicked the blue button and typed in the address, yes, something like this could happen.
<br> <br>
And it's a believable explanation that doesn't assume malice or stupidity on their part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's not entirely unbelievable to think that there might be a computer somewhere in Google HQ that has n't used IE in 4-5 years , and if someone went to a website that said it required IE , and you just clicked the blue button and typed in the address , yes , something like this could happen .
And it 's a believable explanation that does n't assume malice or stupidity on their part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's not entirely unbelievable to think that there might be a computer somewhere in Google HQ that hasn't used IE in 4-5 years, and if someone went to a website that said it required IE, and you just clicked the blue button and typed in the address, yes, something like this could happen.
And it's a believable explanation that doesn't assume malice or stupidity on their part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30797488</id>
	<title>Re:This is shocking!</title>
	<author>eionmac</author>
	<datestamp>1263734160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8463516.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8463516.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>German government warns all against using MS Explorer, any version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8463516.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] German government warns all against using MS Explorer , any version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8463516.stm [bbc.co.uk]German government warns all against using MS Explorer, any version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30797488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30794100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30791920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30795088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30794524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30791318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30791094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_029201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_029201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_029201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_029201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789430
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30795088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30794524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30791094
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788060
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788704
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788192
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30791920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30794100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30797488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30791318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_029201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_029201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_029201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30790016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_029201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30787518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30789986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_029201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_029201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_029201.30788470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
