<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_16_1239212</id>
	<title>German Government Advises Public To Stop Using IE</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263650220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"After McAfee's disclosure of an <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/15/0013239/IE-0-Day-Flaw-Used-In-Chinese-Attack">IE 0-day vulnerability</a> this week that had been used in <a href="http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2010/01/the-aurora-ie-exploit-in-action/">Operation Aurora</a>, the hack and stealing of data from Google, Adobe and about 3 dozen other major companies, the German government has <a href="http://mashable.com/2010/01/15/german-government-stop-using-internet-explorer/">advised the public to switch to alternative browsers</a> (<a href="https://www.bsi.bund.de/cln\_183/ContentBSI/presse/Pressemitteilungen/Sicherheitsluecke\_IE\_150110.html">untranslated statement</a>). Given that the exploit has now been <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/16/029201/Code-Used-To-Attack-Google-Now-Public">made public</a> and the patch from Microsoft is still nowhere to be seen, how long will it be before other governments follow suit?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " After McAfee 's disclosure of an IE 0-day vulnerability this week that had been used in Operation Aurora , the hack and stealing of data from Google , Adobe and about 3 dozen other major companies , the German government has advised the public to switch to alternative browsers ( untranslated statement ) .
Given that the exploit has now been made public and the patch from Microsoft is still nowhere to be seen , how long will it be before other governments follow suit ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "After McAfee's disclosure of an IE 0-day vulnerability this week that had been used in Operation Aurora, the hack and stealing of data from Google, Adobe and about 3 dozen other major companies, the German government has advised the public to switch to alternative browsers (untranslated statement).
Given that the exploit has now been made public and the patch from Microsoft is still nowhere to be seen, how long will it be before other governments follow suit?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791154</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263664680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Perhaps it will take some huge widespread event (like Operation Aurora)"</p><p>Attacks breed robustness by killing off the "slowest zebras". If we want strong systems, we need malicious players to make running vulnerable systems so dangerous that they are replaced.</p><p>People will not run secure systems unless their insecure systems are broken for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Perhaps it will take some huge widespread event ( like Operation Aurora ) " Attacks breed robustness by killing off the " slowest zebras " .
If we want strong systems , we need malicious players to make running vulnerable systems so dangerous that they are replaced.People will not run secure systems unless their insecure systems are broken for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Perhaps it will take some huge widespread event (like Operation Aurora)"Attacks breed robustness by killing off the "slowest zebras".
If we want strong systems, we need malicious players to make running vulnerable systems so dangerous that they are replaced.People will not run secure systems unless their insecure systems are broken for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791294</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1263665640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is not the worst malware problem you can have... the worst kind are  those stealth enough you don't realize you have them. Although a possible strategy for one of those malware could be to create some obvious process and exes and hide the real payload so that it's still present after the user think it got ride of the problem. MMMmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is not the worst malware problem you can have... the worst kind are those stealth enough you do n't realize you have them .
Although a possible strategy for one of those malware could be to create some obvious process and exes and hide the real payload so that it 's still present after the user think it got ride of the problem .
MMMmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is not the worst malware problem you can have... the worst kind are  those stealth enough you don't realize you have them.
Although a possible strategy for one of those malware could be to create some obvious process and exes and hide the real payload so that it's still present after the user think it got ride of the problem.
MMMmmm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30804748</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1263751860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, did you try compatibility mode, which basically emulate IE7?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , did you try compatibility mode , which basically emulate IE7 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, did you try compatibility mode, which basically emulate IE7?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790726</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the "government"</title>
	<author>morgen\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1263661260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The German government itself uses trojans (e.g. <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online-Durchsuchung#Technische\_Umsetzung" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Bundestrojaner</a> [wikipedia.org]) (which every ISP in Germany is required to install) for surveillance purposes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The German government itself uses trojans ( e.g .
Bundestrojaner [ wikipedia.org ] ) ( which every ISP in Germany is required to install ) for surveillance purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The German government itself uses trojans (e.g.
Bundestrojaner [wikipedia.org]) (which every ISP in Germany is required to install) for surveillance purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791398</id>
	<title>Why is there no FireFox LDAP Schema.</title>
	<author>Zombie Ryushu</author>
	<datestamp>1263666360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not talking about AD. I know why they don't include support AD GPOs. It would make FireFox a Windows specific app. But I must ask, considering every OS has its own variant of an LDAP server, why is there no support for managing FireFox from an LDAP schema?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not talking about AD .
I know why they do n't include support AD GPOs .
It would make FireFox a Windows specific app .
But I must ask , considering every OS has its own variant of an LDAP server , why is there no support for managing FireFox from an LDAP schema ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not talking about AD.
I know why they don't include support AD GPOs.
It would make FireFox a Windows specific app.
But I must ask, considering every OS has its own variant of an LDAP server, why is there no support for managing FireFox from an LDAP schema?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790236</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the "government"</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1263656760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a German federal agency, not the German government.</p></div><p>???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a German federal agency , not the German government. ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a German federal agency, not the German government.??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794316</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263644880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a manager for a team of developers that maintain a business critical application which was developed over the past two years. Sadly this application is built around IE6. This was/is a sound business decision at the time since that's the browser that's installed by default in the corporate environment. IE7 was out but not really popular, and it did work about the same as IE6 did.<br>However it's now beginning be hurt us since our external users can't be trusted to have IE6 anymore, and since IE8 have started to follow web standards and doesn't work like IE6 did.<br>And what we're supposed to do when the corp upgrades to next version of windows (and IE8) I don't know since rewriting the application will take a lot of time. Telling the users that no new features will be added for 6 months because we have to rewrite large and critical parts of the application won't really go down well I'm afraid.</p><p>Bad times ahead.</p><p>Posted anonymously since I don't want to get anyone in trouble over disclosing "wrong" information. Especially not me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a manager for a team of developers that maintain a business critical application which was developed over the past two years .
Sadly this application is built around IE6 .
This was/is a sound business decision at the time since that 's the browser that 's installed by default in the corporate environment .
IE7 was out but not really popular , and it did work about the same as IE6 did.However it 's now beginning be hurt us since our external users ca n't be trusted to have IE6 anymore , and since IE8 have started to follow web standards and does n't work like IE6 did.And what we 're supposed to do when the corp upgrades to next version of windows ( and IE8 ) I do n't know since rewriting the application will take a lot of time .
Telling the users that no new features will be added for 6 months because we have to rewrite large and critical parts of the application wo n't really go down well I 'm afraid.Bad times ahead.Posted anonymously since I do n't want to get anyone in trouble over disclosing " wrong " information .
Especially not me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a manager for a team of developers that maintain a business critical application which was developed over the past two years.
Sadly this application is built around IE6.
This was/is a sound business decision at the time since that's the browser that's installed by default in the corporate environment.
IE7 was out but not really popular, and it did work about the same as IE6 did.However it's now beginning be hurt us since our external users can't be trusted to have IE6 anymore, and since IE8 have started to follow web standards and doesn't work like IE6 did.And what we're supposed to do when the corp upgrades to next version of windows (and IE8) I don't know since rewriting the application will take a lot of time.
Telling the users that no new features will be added for 6 months because we have to rewrite large and critical parts of the application won't really go down well I'm afraid.Bad times ahead.Posted anonymously since I don't want to get anyone in trouble over disclosing "wrong" information.
Especially not me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790436</id>
	<title>Re:How to convince my employer to switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263658740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that IE7/Vista is not (by default) vulnerable to the Aurora attacks, don't you? So this incident isn't really a lesson for them to switch.</p><p>Perhaps you can get them to use Chrome. Google's a real company after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that IE7/Vista is not ( by default ) vulnerable to the Aurora attacks , do n't you ?
So this incident is n't really a lesson for them to switch.Perhaps you can get them to use Chrome .
Google 's a real company after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that IE7/Vista is not (by default) vulnerable to the Aurora attacks, don't you?
So this incident isn't really a lesson for them to switch.Perhaps you can get them to use Chrome.
Google's a real company after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790396</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Simon (S2)</author>
	<datestamp>1263658440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You probably already know that, but as you probably do with linux, you should not use stuff like IE with your Admin account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably already know that , but as you probably do with linux , you should not use stuff like IE with your Admin account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably already know that, but as you probably do with linux, you should not use stuff like IE with your Admin account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30793066</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263636060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; This COTS product is irreplaceable...</p><p>The company, however, is quite replaceable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; This COTS product is irreplaceable...The company , however , is quite replaceable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; This COTS product is irreplaceable...The company, however, is quite replaceable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>benjymouse</author>
	<datestamp>1263656100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DEP would have prevented the specific attack. Protected mode would have severely restricted the impact of a successful exploit.

</p><p>But DEP is not the end-all solution. It is a significant barrier to exploiting memory corruption bugs, but with 3rd party software involved there is always the risk that the attacker could use those as stepping stones. Java is always a risk in this regard because of its hotspot compiler nature and a bad habit of placing string constants alongside code. Because of the hotspot technology and because it must execute in-process, Java inherently has the ability to both write and execute code.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET always executes fully compiled and the code blocks are read-only. However, there was a bug (now patched) whereby an attacker could misrepresent the version of an assembly and cause<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET to "nicely" allow an attacker execute string constants.

</p><p>The Vista/7 low-integrity process is effectively a sandbox. It works by dropping the rights of the process so low that IE cannot write *anywhere* on the system, except for a secluded cache store. To my knowledge this has *never* been broken. Again, 3rd party/external software may be the weak links. At a pwn2own an attack successfully circumvented the sandbox by exploiting a bug in a Flash helper process which executed *outside* the sandbox. Another vector seems to be pdf because the pdf reader is *also* running outside the sandbox with "normal" integrity level. The IE broker process which helps marshal downloads have never been broken.

</p><p>Considering that certain other browsers (Firefox and Safari) experience many more security bugs these days, combined with the fact that none of these offer sandboxing, the recommendation does seem a bit odd.

</p><p>Especially in the light of Microsoft's bulletin which makes it very clear that this particular bug would be prevented by *both* DEP as well as protected mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DEP would have prevented the specific attack .
Protected mode would have severely restricted the impact of a successful exploit .
But DEP is not the end-all solution .
It is a significant barrier to exploiting memory corruption bugs , but with 3rd party software involved there is always the risk that the attacker could use those as stepping stones .
Java is always a risk in this regard because of its hotspot compiler nature and a bad habit of placing string constants alongside code .
Because of the hotspot technology and because it must execute in-process , Java inherently has the ability to both write and execute code .
.NET always executes fully compiled and the code blocks are read-only .
However , there was a bug ( now patched ) whereby an attacker could misrepresent the version of an assembly and cause .NET to " nicely " allow an attacker execute string constants .
The Vista/7 low-integrity process is effectively a sandbox .
It works by dropping the rights of the process so low that IE can not write * anywhere * on the system , except for a secluded cache store .
To my knowledge this has * never * been broken .
Again , 3rd party/external software may be the weak links .
At a pwn2own an attack successfully circumvented the sandbox by exploiting a bug in a Flash helper process which executed * outside * the sandbox .
Another vector seems to be pdf because the pdf reader is * also * running outside the sandbox with " normal " integrity level .
The IE broker process which helps marshal downloads have never been broken .
Considering that certain other browsers ( Firefox and Safari ) experience many more security bugs these days , combined with the fact that none of these offer sandboxing , the recommendation does seem a bit odd .
Especially in the light of Microsoft 's bulletin which makes it very clear that this particular bug would be prevented by * both * DEP as well as protected mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DEP would have prevented the specific attack.
Protected mode would have severely restricted the impact of a successful exploit.
But DEP is not the end-all solution.
It is a significant barrier to exploiting memory corruption bugs, but with 3rd party software involved there is always the risk that the attacker could use those as stepping stones.
Java is always a risk in this regard because of its hotspot compiler nature and a bad habit of placing string constants alongside code.
Because of the hotspot technology and because it must execute in-process, Java inherently has the ability to both write and execute code.
.NET always executes fully compiled and the code blocks are read-only.
However, there was a bug (now patched) whereby an attacker could misrepresent the version of an assembly and cause .NET to "nicely" allow an attacker execute string constants.
The Vista/7 low-integrity process is effectively a sandbox.
It works by dropping the rights of the process so low that IE cannot write *anywhere* on the system, except for a secluded cache store.
To my knowledge this has *never* been broken.
Again, 3rd party/external software may be the weak links.
At a pwn2own an attack successfully circumvented the sandbox by exploiting a bug in a Flash helper process which executed *outside* the sandbox.
Another vector seems to be pdf because the pdf reader is *also* running outside the sandbox with "normal" integrity level.
The IE broker process which helps marshal downloads have never been broken.
Considering that certain other browsers (Firefox and Safari) experience many more security bugs these days, combined with the fact that none of these offer sandboxing, the recommendation does seem a bit odd.
Especially in the light of Microsoft's bulletin which makes it very clear that this particular bug would be prevented by *both* DEP as well as protected mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30793664</id>
	<title>Metasploit module</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263640740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.metasploit.com/redmine/projects/framework/repository/revisions/8136/entry/modules/exploits/windows/browser/ie\_aurora.rb" title="metasploit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.metasploit.com/redmine/projects/framework/repository/revisions/8136/entry/modules/exploits/windows/browser/ie\_aurora.rb</a> [metasploit.com] </p><p>Came out yesterday. Oh and it works for IE 7 and 8 (just not 100\% reliably, but that can be modified). This is definitely in the wild now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.metasploit.com/redmine/projects/framework/repository/revisions/8136/entry/modules/exploits/windows/browser/ie \ _aurora.rb [ metasploit.com ] Came out yesterday .
Oh and it works for IE 7 and 8 ( just not 100 \ % reliably , but that can be modified ) .
This is definitely in the wild now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://www.metasploit.com/redmine/projects/framework/repository/revisions/8136/entry/modules/exploits/windows/browser/ie\_aurora.rb [metasploit.com] Came out yesterday.
Oh and it works for IE 7 and 8 (just not 100\% reliably, but that can be modified).
This is definitely in the wild now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790206</id>
	<title>Waiting for Al Gore's Advice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263656460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not taking any advice from the government unless it comes from the Internet inventor himself!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not taking any advice from the government unless it comes from the Internet inventor himself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not taking any advice from the government unless it comes from the Internet inventor himself!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</id>
	<title>A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Senes</author>
	<datestamp>1263654240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just a personal anecdote, but take it as you will. About a week ago I noticed that Firefox kept crashing on some specific pages, so out of curiosity I decided to load one of them in IE - bad, bad idea. The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled. Mind you, this was a week ago. Fortunately I'm on a dual boot system and I was able to go into Linux to delete the malignant exe files, which gave me a foothold to manually recover from the rest of it. IE basically just handed these people control over my system, with no input on my part other than loading a news article which happened to have the PDF on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a personal anecdote , but take it as you will .
About a week ago I noticed that Firefox kept crashing on some specific pages , so out of curiosity I decided to load one of them in IE - bad , bad idea .
The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had ; task manager shut off , antivirus disabled , locked out of registry editor , windows was completely crippled .
Mind you , this was a week ago .
Fortunately I 'm on a dual boot system and I was able to go into Linux to delete the malignant exe files , which gave me a foothold to manually recover from the rest of it .
IE basically just handed these people control over my system , with no input on my part other than loading a news article which happened to have the PDF on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a personal anecdote, but take it as you will.
About a week ago I noticed that Firefox kept crashing on some specific pages, so out of curiosity I decided to load one of them in IE - bad, bad idea.
The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled.
Mind you, this was a week ago.
Fortunately I'm on a dual boot system and I was able to go into Linux to delete the malignant exe files, which gave me a foothold to manually recover from the rest of it.
IE basically just handed these people control over my system, with no input on my part other than loading a news article which happened to have the PDF on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30806794</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>ubersoldat2k7</author>
	<datestamp>1263822420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you're not using Yahoo! Mail, right? It always shows this stupid message about "your Operating System haven't been tested"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you 're not using Yahoo !
Mail , right ?
It always shows this stupid message about " your Operating System have n't been tested "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you're not using Yahoo!
Mail, right?
It always shows this stupid message about "your Operating System haven't been tested"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104</id>
	<title>Before anyone starts throwing stones...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263655320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/search/?search=firefox" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">Check if you're in a glass house first</a> [secunia.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check if you 're in a glass house first [ secunia.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Check if you're in a glass house first [secunia.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791794</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263669060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And obviously it's IE's fault and not the GIANT SECURITY HOLE MASCARADING AS UTILITY Adobe Reader?</p><p>What version if IE are you running, anyway? If you're in Vista or newer, or using IE7 or newer, even Adobe Reader shouldn't be able to do jack to you-- it runs in a sandbox. (And you wouldn't be logging in as admin.)</p><p>Also, it never occurred to you that Firefox's crashing was probably due to this site trying to execute code?</p><p>I mean, I'm not pretending that IE is the most secure browser ever. (Although I do believe that security in IE 8 + Windows 7 is on-par with all other browsers). But if I had the choice between IE and Adobe Reader, I'd pick IE in a heartbeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And obviously it 's IE 's fault and not the GIANT SECURITY HOLE MASCARADING AS UTILITY Adobe Reader ? What version if IE are you running , anyway ?
If you 're in Vista or newer , or using IE7 or newer , even Adobe Reader should n't be able to do jack to you-- it runs in a sandbox .
( And you would n't be logging in as admin .
) Also , it never occurred to you that Firefox 's crashing was probably due to this site trying to execute code ? I mean , I 'm not pretending that IE is the most secure browser ever .
( Although I do believe that security in IE 8 + Windows 7 is on-par with all other browsers ) .
But if I had the choice between IE and Adobe Reader , I 'd pick IE in a heartbeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And obviously it's IE's fault and not the GIANT SECURITY HOLE MASCARADING AS UTILITY Adobe Reader?What version if IE are you running, anyway?
If you're in Vista or newer, or using IE7 or newer, even Adobe Reader shouldn't be able to do jack to you-- it runs in a sandbox.
(And you wouldn't be logging in as admin.
)Also, it never occurred to you that Firefox's crashing was probably due to this site trying to execute code?I mean, I'm not pretending that IE is the most secure browser ever.
(Although I do believe that security in IE 8 + Windows 7 is on-par with all other browsers).
But if I had the choice between IE and Adobe Reader, I'd pick IE in a heartbeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30796962</id>
	<title>German Goverment warned and about Chrome in 2008</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1263724500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-07-n33.html" title="blogoscoped.com">http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-07-n33.html</a> [blogoscoped.com] (September 2008)</p><p>It doesn't get any more "official" than this here. Yesterday, Saturday at around 20:07, Germany's oldest and perhaps biggest prime time news "Tagesschau" announced the following under the headline "Warning against internet browser":</p><p>"The Federal Office for Information Security warned internet users of the new browser Chrome. The application by the company Google should not be used for surfing the internet, as a spokesperson for the office told the "Berliner Zeitung"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-07-n33.html [ blogoscoped.com ] ( September 2008 ) It does n't get any more " official " than this here .
Yesterday , Saturday at around 20 : 07 , Germany 's oldest and perhaps biggest prime time news " Tagesschau " announced the following under the headline " Warning against internet browser " : " The Federal Office for Information Security warned internet users of the new browser Chrome .
The application by the company Google should not be used for surfing the internet , as a spokesperson for the office told the " Berliner Zeitung " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-07-n33.html [blogoscoped.com] (September 2008)It doesn't get any more "official" than this here.
Yesterday, Saturday at around 20:07, Germany's oldest and perhaps biggest prime time news "Tagesschau" announced the following under the headline "Warning against internet browser":"The Federal Office for Information Security warned internet users of the new browser Chrome.
The application by the company Google should not be used for surfing the internet, as a spokesperson for the office told the "Berliner Zeitung"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791984</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263670260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Considering that certain other browsers (Firefox and Safari) experience many more security bugs these days, combined with the fact that none of these offer sandboxing, the recommendation does seem a bit odd.</p><p>What's odd is how you're also minimizing the fact that other browsers also get updated more frequently and diligently with this deceptive statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Considering that certain other browsers ( Firefox and Safari ) experience many more security bugs these days , combined with the fact that none of these offer sandboxing , the recommendation does seem a bit odd.What 's odd is how you 're also minimizing the fact that other browsers also get updated more frequently and diligently with this deceptive statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Considering that certain other browsers (Firefox and Safari) experience many more security bugs these days, combined with the fact that none of these offer sandboxing, the recommendation does seem a bit odd.What's odd is how you're also minimizing the fact that other browsers also get updated more frequently and diligently with this deceptive statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30796544</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263759240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My solution: Run IE... but in a limited user session in a virtual machine that rolls back to a known good snapshot when closed. This works on Macs, and Windows boxes.</p></div><p>So, your suggestion is to use something you know will allow your system to be attacked but to create this elaborate environment to be able to restore your machine to some previous snapshot, losing anything that was done in the mean time,  when you get hammered?</p><p>Any site which now-a-days doesn't work with Firefox is suspect to begin with. Though, I can't remember the last time I ran into a site which didn't work on FF, come to think of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My solution : Run IE... but in a limited user session in a virtual machine that rolls back to a known good snapshot when closed .
This works on Macs , and Windows boxes.So , your suggestion is to use something you know will allow your system to be attacked but to create this elaborate environment to be able to restore your machine to some previous snapshot , losing anything that was done in the mean time , when you get hammered ? Any site which now-a-days does n't work with Firefox is suspect to begin with .
Though , I ca n't remember the last time I ran into a site which did n't work on FF , come to think of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My solution: Run IE... but in a limited user session in a virtual machine that rolls back to a known good snapshot when closed.
This works on Macs, and Windows boxes.So, your suggestion is to use something you know will allow your system to be attacked but to create this elaborate environment to be able to restore your machine to some previous snapshot, losing anything that was done in the mean time,  when you get hammered?Any site which now-a-days doesn't work with Firefox is suspect to begin with.
Though, I can't remember the last time I ran into a site which didn't work on FF, come to think of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792132</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263671580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as IE6 is locked down to intranet-only browsing and there is an alternative (safe) browser installed for web-usage I don't see this issue with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as IE6 is locked down to intranet-only browsing and there is an alternative ( safe ) browser installed for web-usage I do n't see this issue with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as IE6 is locked down to intranet-only browsing and there is an alternative (safe) browser installed for web-usage I don't see this issue with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790160</id>
	<title>How to convince my employer to switch?</title>
	<author>Octopuz</author>
	<datestamp>1263655800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At work we use MSIE 7 on Vista. Although my employer is open to alternatives it must be strictly planned before making such a switch.
Is it possible to switch to, say, Firefox, while still retaining update possibilities? All users are limited in rights, so no admin rights, which Firefox normally needs to be updated.
Imho Mozilla needs to work harder to get companies to run their software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At work we use MSIE 7 on Vista .
Although my employer is open to alternatives it must be strictly planned before making such a switch .
Is it possible to switch to , say , Firefox , while still retaining update possibilities ?
All users are limited in rights , so no admin rights , which Firefox normally needs to be updated .
Imho Mozilla needs to work harder to get companies to run their software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work we use MSIE 7 on Vista.
Although my employer is open to alternatives it must be strictly planned before making such a switch.
Is it possible to switch to, say, Firefox, while still retaining update possibilities?
All users are limited in rights, so no admin rights, which Firefox normally needs to be updated.
Imho Mozilla needs to work harder to get companies to run their software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790370</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>caubert</author>
	<datestamp>1263658140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You really should give link to that site. I'd be happy to sandbox it and analyze the contents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You really should give link to that site .
I 'd be happy to sandbox it and analyze the contents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really should give link to that site.
I'd be happy to sandbox it and analyze the contents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794166</id>
	<title>Re:Why were you running as an admin?</title>
	<author>binner1</author>
	<datestamp>1263643860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...actually, we've been stung by some crap coming via either acrobat reader or flash since those last two exploits were noted.  Our users are all unprivileged.  Windows was fully patched, SAV up-to-date, etc.  This stuff is ready and willing to run with limited rights.  It doesn't hose the machine, as you can simply kill the local registry hive to clean it (worst case), but it was nasty none-the-less.</p><p>Not saying GP wasn't running as admin, but it's not necessarily a requirement for these nasties any more.</p><p>-Ben</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...actually , we 've been stung by some crap coming via either acrobat reader or flash since those last two exploits were noted .
Our users are all unprivileged .
Windows was fully patched , SAV up-to-date , etc .
This stuff is ready and willing to run with limited rights .
It does n't hose the machine , as you can simply kill the local registry hive to clean it ( worst case ) , but it was nasty none-the-less.Not saying GP was n't running as admin , but it 's not necessarily a requirement for these nasties any more.-Ben</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...actually, we've been stung by some crap coming via either acrobat reader or flash since those last two exploits were noted.
Our users are all unprivileged.
Windows was fully patched, SAV up-to-date, etc.
This stuff is ready and willing to run with limited rights.
It doesn't hose the machine, as you can simply kill the local registry hive to clean it (worst case), but it was nasty none-the-less.Not saying GP wasn't running as admin, but it's not necessarily a requirement for these nasties any more.-Ben</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791408</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1263666420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen sites with these vulnerabilities, and they can cruise right through Firefox if written correctly. Why Firefox was crashing instead of loading Acrobat is either you may have a plugin that blocks malicious strings, (Like Adblock Plus - Which I highly recommend) Firefox already patched a hole that the malware was trying to exploit or they were exploiting an IE hole to start Acrobat and Firefox didn't like the way it was called. Also Consider that Firefox crashed, which can also lead to a possible code injection attack if it can be exploited in a specific manner.</p><p>Ultimately, The real Culprit here is the PDF File. Adobe in in general is the attack of choice anymore. Most likely it was a malicious Flash Ad delivered from a Third party service, which then called for a malicious PDF, which the browser will happily open up using Acrobat's plugin.</p><p>If you really want to fix this, block the AD's (either with <a href="http://adblockplus.org/" title="adblockplus.org">The Firefox plugin AdBlock Plus</a> [adblockplus.org] or with <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22124619-IE8-InPrivate-filter-from-adblock-plus-list" title="dslreports.com">IE8's Inprivate Filtering</a> [dslreports.com] and either get the latest Acrobat (which finally has some security in it) or replace it with <a href="http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/" title="foxitsoftware.com">Foxit Reader</a> [foxitsoftware.com]</p><p>Finally. Always Update IE Even if you exclusively use Firefox and never ever use IE. There is a lot of improvements that were made in security in IE8, and I have seen Flash apps that in Firefox will start IE to attempt to exploit unpatched IE holes. If you can't (Because Ye Be A Pirate Matey!! ARRR!! or because your company won't let you.) Then turn IE6 security to high for all security zones and use Firefox exclusively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen sites with these vulnerabilities , and they can cruise right through Firefox if written correctly .
Why Firefox was crashing instead of loading Acrobat is either you may have a plugin that blocks malicious strings , ( Like Adblock Plus - Which I highly recommend ) Firefox already patched a hole that the malware was trying to exploit or they were exploiting an IE hole to start Acrobat and Firefox did n't like the way it was called .
Also Consider that Firefox crashed , which can also lead to a possible code injection attack if it can be exploited in a specific manner.Ultimately , The real Culprit here is the PDF File .
Adobe in in general is the attack of choice anymore .
Most likely it was a malicious Flash Ad delivered from a Third party service , which then called for a malicious PDF , which the browser will happily open up using Acrobat 's plugin.If you really want to fix this , block the AD 's ( either with The Firefox plugin AdBlock Plus [ adblockplus.org ] or with IE8 's Inprivate Filtering [ dslreports.com ] and either get the latest Acrobat ( which finally has some security in it ) or replace it with Foxit Reader [ foxitsoftware.com ] Finally .
Always Update IE Even if you exclusively use Firefox and never ever use IE .
There is a lot of improvements that were made in security in IE8 , and I have seen Flash apps that in Firefox will start IE to attempt to exploit unpatched IE holes .
If you ca n't ( Because Ye Be A Pirate Matey ! !
ARRR ! ! or because your company wo n't let you .
) Then turn IE6 security to high for all security zones and use Firefox exclusively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen sites with these vulnerabilities, and they can cruise right through Firefox if written correctly.
Why Firefox was crashing instead of loading Acrobat is either you may have a plugin that blocks malicious strings, (Like Adblock Plus - Which I highly recommend) Firefox already patched a hole that the malware was trying to exploit or they were exploiting an IE hole to start Acrobat and Firefox didn't like the way it was called.
Also Consider that Firefox crashed, which can also lead to a possible code injection attack if it can be exploited in a specific manner.Ultimately, The real Culprit here is the PDF File.
Adobe in in general is the attack of choice anymore.
Most likely it was a malicious Flash Ad delivered from a Third party service, which then called for a malicious PDF, which the browser will happily open up using Acrobat's plugin.If you really want to fix this, block the AD's (either with The Firefox plugin AdBlock Plus [adblockplus.org] or with IE8's Inprivate Filtering [dslreports.com] and either get the latest Acrobat (which finally has some security in it) or replace it with Foxit Reader [foxitsoftware.com]Finally.
Always Update IE Even if you exclusively use Firefox and never ever use IE.
There is a lot of improvements that were made in security in IE8, and I have seen Flash apps that in Firefox will start IE to attempt to exploit unpatched IE holes.
If you can't (Because Ye Be A Pirate Matey!!
ARRR!! or because your company won't let you.
) Then turn IE6 security to high for all security zones and use Firefox exclusively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790196</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1263656340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DEP, which is a Windows feature and not an IE feature, is also active for recent versions of Firefox.</p><p>What Firefox lacks though is the sandboxing using a lower-privileged logon (Protected Mode).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DEP , which is a Windows feature and not an IE feature , is also active for recent versions of Firefox.What Firefox lacks though is the sandboxing using a lower-privileged logon ( Protected Mode ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DEP, which is a Windows feature and not an IE feature, is also active for recent versions of Firefox.What Firefox lacks though is the sandboxing using a lower-privileged logon (Protected Mode).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791044</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263663900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This still isn't completely safe as hypervisor exploits can contaminate the host machine. For the near future this likely will remain a sophisticated attack beyond the typical malware, but as the virtual appliance concept goes mainstream we can expect to see more work in that area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This still is n't completely safe as hypervisor exploits can contaminate the host machine .
For the near future this likely will remain a sophisticated attack beyond the typical malware , but as the virtual appliance concept goes mainstream we can expect to see more work in that area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This still isn't completely safe as hypervisor exploits can contaminate the host machine.
For the near future this likely will remain a sophisticated attack beyond the typical malware, but as the virtual appliance concept goes mainstream we can expect to see more work in that area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791452</id>
	<title>And the alternative is ... ?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263666780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show me the browser that isn't exploitable, or show me the browser thats been as popular for as long that is more secure.</p><p>Go ahead, I'll wait<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I'm not saying IE is great, but the this sort of response is retarded and lead by fanboys who are too stupid to realize that all code has problems and exploits, its retarded to imply something else is better with no valid reason to assume so.</p><p>Good job Germany, you jumped on the FUD bandwagon.</p><p>Yes, I realize I'm going to be fanboy modded into oblivion, go ahead, you need something in your life to make you feel useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me the browser that is n't exploitable , or show me the browser thats been as popular for as long that is more secure.Go ahead , I 'll wait ...I 'm not saying IE is great , but the this sort of response is retarded and lead by fanboys who are too stupid to realize that all code has problems and exploits , its retarded to imply something else is better with no valid reason to assume so.Good job Germany , you jumped on the FUD bandwagon.Yes , I realize I 'm going to be fanboy modded into oblivion , go ahead , you need something in your life to make you feel useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me the browser that isn't exploitable, or show me the browser thats been as popular for as long that is more secure.Go ahead, I'll wait ...I'm not saying IE is great, but the this sort of response is retarded and lead by fanboys who are too stupid to realize that all code has problems and exploits, its retarded to imply something else is better with no valid reason to assume so.Good job Germany, you jumped on the FUD bandwagon.Yes, I realize I'm going to be fanboy modded into oblivion, go ahead, you need something in your life to make you feel useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792860</id>
	<title>Re:How to convince my employer to switch?</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1263634140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what you environment is like precisely, but the biggest barrier to switching is if you are using Sharepoint, Outlook Web Access, or any Customer Built Web applications tested only to render properly with Internet Explorer's "Interpretation" of W3C standards.  Web Access works in "Lite" mode, meaning not all features are available.  Sharepoint is absolutely terrible, and any of those custom built applications could cease to work entirely.</p><p>Judging by the fact that you are still using IE 7 and have not been upgraded to IE 8, I'm guessing there are some major internal web apps written that are tailored to work with IE 7 (As working in IE 7 doesn't mean it will work in IE 8 or even IE 8 with compatability mode).</p><p>I've been in situation where I tried to have users only use Internet Explorer for Sharepoint and Firefox for browsing the web, but that just seems to confuse them and they end up completely ignoring Firefox.  After all, Internet Explorer works for both Sharepoint and all External Web Sites.  Firefox doesn't work for Sharepoint.  Therefore, IE is better in their eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what you environment is like precisely , but the biggest barrier to switching is if you are using Sharepoint , Outlook Web Access , or any Customer Built Web applications tested only to render properly with Internet Explorer 's " Interpretation " of W3C standards .
Web Access works in " Lite " mode , meaning not all features are available .
Sharepoint is absolutely terrible , and any of those custom built applications could cease to work entirely.Judging by the fact that you are still using IE 7 and have not been upgraded to IE 8 , I 'm guessing there are some major internal web apps written that are tailored to work with IE 7 ( As working in IE 7 does n't mean it will work in IE 8 or even IE 8 with compatability mode ) .I 've been in situation where I tried to have users only use Internet Explorer for Sharepoint and Firefox for browsing the web , but that just seems to confuse them and they end up completely ignoring Firefox .
After all , Internet Explorer works for both Sharepoint and all External Web Sites .
Firefox does n't work for Sharepoint .
Therefore , IE is better in their eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what you environment is like precisely, but the biggest barrier to switching is if you are using Sharepoint, Outlook Web Access, or any Customer Built Web applications tested only to render properly with Internet Explorer's "Interpretation" of W3C standards.
Web Access works in "Lite" mode, meaning not all features are available.
Sharepoint is absolutely terrible, and any of those custom built applications could cease to work entirely.Judging by the fact that you are still using IE 7 and have not been upgraded to IE 8, I'm guessing there are some major internal web apps written that are tailored to work with IE 7 (As working in IE 7 doesn't mean it will work in IE 8 or even IE 8 with compatability mode).I've been in situation where I tried to have users only use Internet Explorer for Sharepoint and Firefox for browsing the web, but that just seems to confuse them and they end up completely ignoring Firefox.
After all, Internet Explorer works for both Sharepoint and all External Web Sites.
Firefox doesn't work for Sharepoint.
Therefore, IE is better in their eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1263660660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would be surprised.  There are still a lot of websites out there which will not just tell you to take a hike if you are not using IE, but actually run JavaScript tests to check if someone spoofed the user agent field.</p><p>My solution:  Run IE... but in a limited user session in a virtual machine that rolls back to a known good snapshot when closed.  This works on Macs, and Windows boxes.  Since Windows 7 offers XP as a download, might as well take advantage of it.  This way, any zero days just mean that the VM user in the guest OS gets infected, and that infection gets dumped the second I'm done dealing with the website in question and close the VM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would be surprised .
There are still a lot of websites out there which will not just tell you to take a hike if you are not using IE , but actually run JavaScript tests to check if someone spoofed the user agent field.My solution : Run IE... but in a limited user session in a virtual machine that rolls back to a known good snapshot when closed .
This works on Macs , and Windows boxes .
Since Windows 7 offers XP as a download , might as well take advantage of it .
This way , any zero days just mean that the VM user in the guest OS gets infected , and that infection gets dumped the second I 'm done dealing with the website in question and close the VM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would be surprised.
There are still a lot of websites out there which will not just tell you to take a hike if you are not using IE, but actually run JavaScript tests to check if someone spoofed the user agent field.My solution:  Run IE... but in a limited user session in a virtual machine that rolls back to a known good snapshot when closed.
This works on Macs, and Windows boxes.
Since Windows 7 offers XP as a download, might as well take advantage of it.
This way, any zero days just mean that the VM user in the guest OS gets infected, and that infection gets dumped the second I'm done dealing with the website in question and close the VM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791288</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263665640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, think about it this way:</p><p>Why do website designers still support it? Because too many users still use it. Right?<br>And why do users still use it? Because website designers still support it, and so: Because they can.<br>No why does this obvious feedback loop not break and crash? Because there are way too many people parroting the mindset of &ldquo;it will never die&rdquo; into other people&rsquo;s heads.</p><p>All you three groups: STOP IT!<br>Every single one of you. You&rsquo;re pathetic to just always blame the others.<br>Be a man, take a first step. If you act in a way that shows you&rsquo;re sure about yourself, others will automatically follow. Lead.</p><p>Yes, you can kill IE6 today. Just dare to stand out of the mass.</p><p>I certainly did. I just write proper XHTML, modern JS and CSS. I do not even care to show a &ldquo;your browser is outdated&rdquo; message. Because after years of having worked in that business, I learned that if I just stop caring about those still use it, nothing bad will happen at all. If they care enough, they will make it work with my site. If not, I don&rsquo;t need them anyway.<br>Because people who are that backwards, cost more effort, than they are worth.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , think about it this way : Why do website designers still support it ?
Because too many users still use it .
Right ? And why do users still use it ?
Because website designers still support it , and so : Because they can.No why does this obvious feedback loop not break and crash ?
Because there are way too many people parroting the mindset of    it will never die    into other people    s heads.All you three groups : STOP IT ! Every single one of you .
You    re pathetic to just always blame the others.Be a man , take a first step .
If you act in a way that shows you    re sure about yourself , others will automatically follow .
Lead.Yes , you can kill IE6 today .
Just dare to stand out of the mass.I certainly did .
I just write proper XHTML , modern JS and CSS .
I do not even care to show a    your browser is outdated    message .
Because after years of having worked in that business , I learned that if I just stop caring about those still use it , nothing bad will happen at all .
If they care enough , they will make it work with my site .
If not , I don    t need them anyway.Because people who are that backwards , cost more effort , than they are worth .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, think about it this way:Why do website designers still support it?
Because too many users still use it.
Right?And why do users still use it?
Because website designers still support it, and so: Because they can.No why does this obvious feedback loop not break and crash?
Because there are way too many people parroting the mindset of “it will never die” into other people’s heads.All you three groups: STOP IT!Every single one of you.
You’re pathetic to just always blame the others.Be a man, take a first step.
If you act in a way that shows you’re sure about yourself, others will automatically follow.
Lead.Yes, you can kill IE6 today.
Just dare to stand out of the mass.I certainly did.
I just write proper XHTML, modern JS and CSS.
I do not even care to show a “your browser is outdated” message.
Because after years of having worked in that business, I learned that if I just stop caring about those still use it, nothing bad will happen at all.
If they care enough, they will make it work with my site.
If not, I don’t need them anyway.Because people who are that backwards, cost more effort, than they are worth.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792300</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1263673080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I use le Chrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I use le Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I use le Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791188</id>
	<title>Re:Before anyone starts throwing stones...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263664860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don&rsquo;t know if you were living in a rock the last time this was discussed, or if you are just trolling.</p><p>The list of <em>known</em> problems <strong>does not equal</strong> the list of <em>actual</em> problems.<br>Especially not for closed-source browsers of a company that threatens and sues every site that tries to track long-standing security holes.</p><p>And if you ever actually would have tried to write any web application for the IE, you would know that Trident is a horrible horrible piece of spaghetti shit in an upside-down pyramid of architecture that can&rsquo;t really be described with words. Then it would be clearly obvious why IE is so much worse. Microsoft knows this too. They know that unless they do a complete rewrite, that will only become worse. But their management thinks that a complete rewrite will take forever. And the chance for it to result in a profit is extremely small. So they will keep what they can, and either slowly let IE die if they don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s gonna bring them some profit, or wait until there&rsquo;s really really nothing to save anymore, and then do a complete re-start with the least possible effort and quality.</p><p>Also on top of that: Using IE brings you the hate of EVERY web developer out there. No exceptions. I worked in that business for five years.<br>Believe me, if those web developers get any chance from their management or clients, to punish you for using IE, they will!<br>Web application developers might even cry tears of joy and relief about it.</p><p>It&rsquo;s just as much an unwise choice to use IE to surf websites, than it is to insult your cook at a restaurant.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I don    t know if you were living in a rock the last time this was discussed , or if you are just trolling.The list of known problems does not equal the list of actual problems.Especially not for closed-source browsers of a company that threatens and sues every site that tries to track long-standing security holes.And if you ever actually would have tried to write any web application for the IE , you would know that Trident is a horrible horrible piece of spaghetti shit in an upside-down pyramid of architecture that can    t really be described with words .
Then it would be clearly obvious why IE is so much worse .
Microsoft knows this too .
They know that unless they do a complete rewrite , that will only become worse .
But their management thinks that a complete rewrite will take forever .
And the chance for it to result in a profit is extremely small .
So they will keep what they can , and either slowly let IE die if they don    t think it    s gon na bring them some profit , or wait until there    s really really nothing to save anymore , and then do a complete re-start with the least possible effort and quality.Also on top of that : Using IE brings you the hate of EVERY web developer out there .
No exceptions .
I worked in that business for five years.Believe me , if those web developers get any chance from their management or clients , to punish you for using IE , they will ! Web application developers might even cry tears of joy and relief about it.It    s just as much an unwise choice to use IE to surf websites , than it is to insult your cook at a restaurant .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don’t know if you were living in a rock the last time this was discussed, or if you are just trolling.The list of known problems does not equal the list of actual problems.Especially not for closed-source browsers of a company that threatens and sues every site that tries to track long-standing security holes.And if you ever actually would have tried to write any web application for the IE, you would know that Trident is a horrible horrible piece of spaghetti shit in an upside-down pyramid of architecture that can’t really be described with words.
Then it would be clearly obvious why IE is so much worse.
Microsoft knows this too.
They know that unless they do a complete rewrite, that will only become worse.
But their management thinks that a complete rewrite will take forever.
And the chance for it to result in a profit is extremely small.
So they will keep what they can, and either slowly let IE die if they don’t think it’s gonna bring them some profit, or wait until there’s really really nothing to save anymore, and then do a complete re-start with the least possible effort and quality.Also on top of that: Using IE brings you the hate of EVERY web developer out there.
No exceptions.
I worked in that business for five years.Believe me, if those web developers get any chance from their management or clients, to punish you for using IE, they will!Web application developers might even cry tears of joy and relief about it.It’s just as much an unwise choice to use IE to surf websites, than it is to insult your cook at a restaurant.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791636</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263667920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have not seen a single one in years.</p><p>Can you name some examples?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have not seen a single one in years.Can you name some examples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have not seen a single one in years.Can you name some examples?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790918</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>IdleTime</author>
	<datestamp>1263663120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I do take a hike in those cases.<br> <br>
If I encounter such a webpage, I simply move on as I am running Linux and have no interest in any web sites that think they need to force me to run any Windows crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do take a hike in those cases .
If I encounter such a webpage , I simply move on as I am running Linux and have no interest in any web sites that think they need to force me to run any Windows crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I do take a hike in those cases.
If I encounter such a webpage, I simply move on as I am running Linux and have no interest in any web sites that think they need to force me to run any Windows crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790122</id>
	<title>German Goverment stops using jews.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263655380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uninstall all your jews today, or we will take it away on our removal trains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uninstall all your jews today , or we will take it away on our removal trains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uninstall all your jews today, or we will take it away on our removal trains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791018</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263663720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Links please?</p><p>I'd like to those that using a VM. (VirtualBox for teh convenient win!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Links please ? I 'd like to those that using a VM .
( VirtualBox for teh convenient win !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Links please?I'd like to those that using a VM.
(VirtualBox for teh convenient win!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791140</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263664560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at the dozens of hacked top companies all I can say is: theory is a fickle bitch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the dozens of hacked top companies all I can say is : theory is a fickle bitch ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the dozens of hacked top companies all I can say is: theory is a fickle bitch ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1263656460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>About a week ago I noticed that Firefox kept crashing on some specific pages, so out of curiosity I decided to load one of them in IE - bad, bad idea. The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled.</p> </div><p>What kind of web page was that, and what was so compelling about it that you decided to use IE to get it to load?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>About a week ago I noticed that Firefox kept crashing on some specific pages , so out of curiosity I decided to load one of them in IE - bad , bad idea .
The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had ; task manager shut off , antivirus disabled , locked out of registry editor , windows was completely crippled .
What kind of web page was that , and what was so compelling about it that you decided to use IE to get it to load ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About a week ago I noticed that Firefox kept crashing on some specific pages, so out of curiosity I decided to load one of them in IE - bad, bad idea.
The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled.
What kind of web page was that, and what was so compelling about it that you decided to use IE to get it to load?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790246</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263656820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;IE basically just handed these people control over my system, with no input on my part other than loading a news article which happened to have the PDF on it.</p><p>When browsing the web myself, I use either Firefox or Arora, running under KDE 4.3.4, in trun running on Arch Linx x86\_64. I use Okular to read PDF files. "Those people" would not have a hope of breaking through my system.</p><p>&gt;The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled.</p><p>Not a problem at all for those of us who aren't forced to run Microsoft software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; IE basically just handed these people control over my system , with no input on my part other than loading a news article which happened to have the PDF on it.When browsing the web myself , I use either Firefox or Arora , running under KDE 4.3.4 , in trun running on Arch Linx x86 \ _64 .
I use Okular to read PDF files .
" Those people " would not have a hope of breaking through my system. &gt; The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had ; task manager shut off , antivirus disabled , locked out of registry editor , windows was completely crippled.Not a problem at all for those of us who are n't forced to run Microsoft software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;IE basically just handed these people control over my system, with no input on my part other than loading a news article which happened to have the PDF on it.When browsing the web myself, I use either Firefox or Arora, running under KDE 4.3.4, in trun running on Arch Linx x86\_64.
I use Okular to read PDF files.
"Those people" would not have a hope of breaking through my system.&gt;The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled.Not a problem at all for those of us who aren't forced to run Microsoft software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791926</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they can't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263669960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not MS's problem if your intranet app will not work on IE8. If you elected to use the whiz-bang features of IE6 that were not standards compliant, that was your fault, not theirs. the fix is to upgrade to IE8. If you can not do this due to other business decisions, then you made bad business decisions. MS *should not* correct this issue for IE6 or IE7. Perhaps leaving them unpatched would quicken the uptake of IE8, which is a reasonably compliant and reasonably stable browser, at least as much so as Firefox was 1 yr ago, and everyone talked about how great it was then. If Forefox was good a year ago, and IE8 is there now, then it is good now, otherwise you are all just blowing smoke up your asses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not MS 's problem if your intranet app will not work on IE8 .
If you elected to use the whiz-bang features of IE6 that were not standards compliant , that was your fault , not theirs .
the fix is to upgrade to IE8 .
If you can not do this due to other business decisions , then you made bad business decisions .
MS * should not * correct this issue for IE6 or IE7 .
Perhaps leaving them unpatched would quicken the uptake of IE8 , which is a reasonably compliant and reasonably stable browser , at least as much so as Firefox was 1 yr ago , and everyone talked about how great it was then .
If Forefox was good a year ago , and IE8 is there now , then it is good now , otherwise you are all just blowing smoke up your asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not MS's problem if your intranet app will not work on IE8.
If you elected to use the whiz-bang features of IE6 that were not standards compliant, that was your fault, not theirs.
the fix is to upgrade to IE8.
If you can not do this due to other business decisions, then you made bad business decisions.
MS *should not* correct this issue for IE6 or IE7.
Perhaps leaving them unpatched would quicken the uptake of IE8, which is a reasonably compliant and reasonably stable browser, at least as much so as Firefox was 1 yr ago, and everyone talked about how great it was then.
If Forefox was good a year ago, and IE8 is there now, then it is good now, otherwise you are all just blowing smoke up your asses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790876</id>
	<title>Why were you running as an admin?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263662820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled</i></p><p>I guess my question would be, why were you running Windows as an admin account that would even let you, as a user, have permissions to do any of this stuff.    I mean, you can tout Linux as much as you want, but in this case, the real culprit is your shoddy use of Windows security tools.  I mean, would you run FireFox as root in Linux?  Don't think so.  So why did you do it to IE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had ; task manager shut off , antivirus disabled , locked out of registry editor , windows was completely crippledI guess my question would be , why were you running Windows as an admin account that would even let you , as a user , have permissions to do any of this stuff .
I mean , you can tout Linux as much as you want , but in this case , the real culprit is your shoddy use of Windows security tools .
I mean , would you run FireFox as root in Linux ?
Do n't think so .
So why did you do it to IE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippledI guess my question would be, why were you running Windows as an admin account that would even let you, as a user, have permissions to do any of this stuff.
I mean, you can tout Linux as much as you want, but in this case, the real culprit is your shoddy use of Windows security tools.
I mean, would you run FireFox as root in Linux?
Don't think so.
So why did you do it to IE?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790124</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263655440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>yess well germany does seem to have problems with getting this whole Internet thing - throuble is all the realy good people want to go into old skool engineering and work for audi and not Computers</htmltext>
<tokenext>yess well germany does seem to have problems with getting this whole Internet thing - throuble is all the realy good people want to go into old skool engineering and work for audi and not Computers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yess well germany does seem to have problems with getting this whole Internet thing - throuble is all the realy good people want to go into old skool engineering and work for audi and not Computers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048</id>
	<title>Right Decision?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263654600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>According the original article, DEP (enabled by default in IE8) and sandbox mode (Windows 7, Vista) all stop this zero day.<br> <br>
If that is the case, doesn't that in IE's favor, nor against? All browsers have vulnerabilities. All of them have zero-days. However, it seems that IE has some pretty good built-in protections that Firefox lacks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According the original article , DEP ( enabled by default in IE8 ) and sandbox mode ( Windows 7 , Vista ) all stop this zero day .
If that is the case , does n't that in IE 's favor , nor against ?
All browsers have vulnerabilities .
All of them have zero-days .
However , it seems that IE has some pretty good built-in protections that Firefox lacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According the original article, DEP (enabled by default in IE8) and sandbox mode (Windows 7, Vista) all stop this zero day.
If that is the case, doesn't that in IE's favor, nor against?
All browsers have vulnerabilities.
All of them have zero-days.
However, it seems that IE has some pretty good built-in protections that Firefox lacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791032</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1263663780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solution: firewall IE to anything non localhost and switch to Firefox or Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solution : firewall IE to anything non localhost and switch to Firefox or Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solution: firewall IE to anything non localhost and switch to Firefox or Opera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790460</id>
	<title>Use Foxit Reader</title>
	<author>allcoolnameswheretak</author>
	<datestamp>1263658920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to switch to Foxit PDF Reader<br><a href="http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/" title="foxitsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/</a> [foxitsoftware.com]</p><p>Smaller, faster, safer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to switch to Foxit PDF Readerhttp : //www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/ [ foxitsoftware.com ] Smaller , faster , safer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to switch to Foxit PDF Readerhttp://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/ [foxitsoftware.com]Smaller, faster, safer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790278</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263657180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may be correct, I can't say since I haven't used Windoze for anything to do with the internet in a long time.  I do wonder though, why don't they just patch the damn thing?  I mean really.  They know a lot of people are getting infected, don't they give a shit?  Ah...my bad.  This is Micro$oft we're talking about here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be correct , I ca n't say since I have n't used Windoze for anything to do with the internet in a long time .
I do wonder though , why do n't they just patch the damn thing ?
I mean really .
They know a lot of people are getting infected , do n't they give a shit ?
Ah...my bad .
This is Micro $ oft we 're talking about here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be correct, I can't say since I haven't used Windoze for anything to do with the internet in a long time.
I do wonder though, why don't they just patch the damn thing?
I mean really.
They know a lot of people are getting infected, don't they give a shit?
Ah...my bad.
This is Micro$oft we're talking about here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790664</id>
	<title>Re:Use Foxit Reader</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263660780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Google Docs. I hope it is safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Google Docs .
I hope it is safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Google Docs.
I hope it is safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791434</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>Skarecrow77</author>
	<datestamp>1263666600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard of this many times, but I'm quite curious. What are these companies planning on doing in the very near future where they can no longer get IE6?</p><p>So far as I was aware, there are only a handful of manufacturers still shipping windows XP and you've got to call them up and specifically ask for it, and even then it's only on a handful of models.</p><p>Are these companies planning on ordering new windows 7 machines and having the IT team pop in old XP install discs (don't even want to touch legal problems with THAT with a 10 foot pole) so the systems can dual boot up XP so they can use IE6?</p><p>Is there some way to install IE6 on newer OSes? I've never tried, but in general microsoft doesn't seem too keen on letting you install older versions of programs. I know that windows pitched a bitch at my team when we tried to install MSTSC 5.2 on a vista system (MSTSC 6.0 native) for testing purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard of this many times , but I 'm quite curious .
What are these companies planning on doing in the very near future where they can no longer get IE6 ? So far as I was aware , there are only a handful of manufacturers still shipping windows XP and you 've got to call them up and specifically ask for it , and even then it 's only on a handful of models.Are these companies planning on ordering new windows 7 machines and having the IT team pop in old XP install discs ( do n't even want to touch legal problems with THAT with a 10 foot pole ) so the systems can dual boot up XP so they can use IE6 ? Is there some way to install IE6 on newer OSes ?
I 've never tried , but in general microsoft does n't seem too keen on letting you install older versions of programs .
I know that windows pitched a bitch at my team when we tried to install MSTSC 5.2 on a vista system ( MSTSC 6.0 native ) for testing purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard of this many times, but I'm quite curious.
What are these companies planning on doing in the very near future where they can no longer get IE6?So far as I was aware, there are only a handful of manufacturers still shipping windows XP and you've got to call them up and specifically ask for it, and even then it's only on a handful of models.Are these companies planning on ordering new windows 7 machines and having the IT team pop in old XP install discs (don't even want to touch legal problems with THAT with a 10 foot pole) so the systems can dual boot up XP so they can use IE6?Is there some way to install IE6 on newer OSes?
I've never tried, but in general microsoft doesn't seem too keen on letting you install older versions of programs.
I know that windows pitched a bitch at my team when we tried to install MSTSC 5.2 on a vista system (MSTSC 6.0 native) for testing purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30806688</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Acaeris</author>
	<datestamp>1263821580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, the only thing he'd lose is the infection and the browser history as it's all contained in a VM. Everything else he wants to do he can do outside the VM safe from anything contained in VM. Microsoft even provide a VM setup that just does IE so that web developers can test their websites in IE6 (XP), IE7 (XP &amp; Vista) and IE8 (XP &amp; Vista) which you could use for this purpose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , the only thing he 'd lose is the infection and the browser history as it 's all contained in a VM .
Everything else he wants to do he can do outside the VM safe from anything contained in VM .
Microsoft even provide a VM setup that just does IE so that web developers can test their websites in IE6 ( XP ) , IE7 ( XP &amp; Vista ) and IE8 ( XP &amp; Vista ) which you could use for this purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, the only thing he'd lose is the infection and the browser history as it's all contained in a VM.
Everything else he wants to do he can do outside the VM safe from anything contained in VM.
Microsoft even provide a VM setup that just does IE so that web developers can test their websites in IE6 (XP), IE7 (XP &amp; Vista) and IE8 (XP &amp; Vista) which you could use for this purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30796544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791162</id>
	<title>Why don't you post a more useful link?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263664740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such as this one: <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/</a> [secunia.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>"There are no unpatched Secunia advisories affecting this product [Firefox]"</p><p>Unpatched        0\% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)</p></div></blockquote><p>Or this one: <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/</a> [secunia.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>"The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet Explorer 8.x, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Extremely critical"</p><p>"Unpatched        50\% (4 of 8 Secunia advisories)"</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Such as this one : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/ [ secunia.com ] " There are no unpatched Secunia advisories affecting this product [ Firefox ] " Unpatched 0 \ % ( 0 of 6 Secunia advisories ) Or this one : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/ [ secunia.com ] " The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet Explorer 8.x , with all vendor patches applied , is rated Extremely critical " " Unpatched 50 \ % ( 4 of 8 Secunia advisories ) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such as this one: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/ [secunia.com] "There are no unpatched Secunia advisories affecting this product [Firefox]"Unpatched        0\% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)Or this one: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/ [secunia.com] "The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet Explorer 8.x, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Extremely critical""Unpatched        50\% (4 of 8 Secunia advisories)"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791400</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>theLOUDroom</author>
	<datestamp>1263666360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Considering that certain other browsers (Firefox and Safari) experience many more security bugs these days</i> <br>
<br>
What a bunch of crap!<br>
Where's your proof?<br>
<br>
<b>#1) It's impossible to conclusively make this statement since we don't have access to Microsoft's internal bug tracker.<br>
#2) The directly comparable indicators we do have (how many major exploits are actually published) do not agree with your statement.</b>
#3) Your statement ignores one other key factor: The time it takes the vendor to fix the bug.  Who cares is a browser has only one major security exploit per year if it takes two years for the vendor to fix it?  At that point, your ass is always hanging out in the wind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that certain other browsers ( Firefox and Safari ) experience many more security bugs these days What a bunch of crap !
Where 's your proof ?
# 1 ) It 's impossible to conclusively make this statement since we do n't have access to Microsoft 's internal bug tracker .
# 2 ) The directly comparable indicators we do have ( how many major exploits are actually published ) do not agree with your statement .
# 3 ) Your statement ignores one other key factor : The time it takes the vendor to fix the bug .
Who cares is a browser has only one major security exploit per year if it takes two years for the vendor to fix it ?
At that point , your ass is always hanging out in the wind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that certain other browsers (Firefox and Safari) experience many more security bugs these days 

What a bunch of crap!
Where's your proof?
#1) It's impossible to conclusively make this statement since we don't have access to Microsoft's internal bug tracker.
#2) The directly comparable indicators we do have (how many major exploits are actually published) do not agree with your statement.
#3) Your statement ignores one other key factor: The time it takes the vendor to fix the bug.
Who cares is a browser has only one major security exploit per year if it takes two years for the vendor to fix it?
At that point, your ass is always hanging out in the wind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792370</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>jthill</author>
	<datestamp>1263673560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering that certain other browsers (Firefox and Safari) experience many more security bugs these days, combined with the fact that none of these offer sandboxing, the recommendation does seem a bit odd.</p> </div><p>The rest of your post, including the sandboxing point,  deserves that 5. This one doesn't belong on the same page.
</p><p>Everyone paying attention can see that Firefox (and open-source general practice) reports and patches <em> <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox35.html" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">as critical security holes</a> [mozilla.org] </em> bugs for which  there's only theoretic <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-34.html" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">or even just heuristic</a> [mozilla.org] evidence of a potential security breach, while Microsoft's usual reports are of bugs that have actually been exploited and are often actually leaking data in the wild, and eventually releases patches for those.
</p><p>Microsoft, understandably given their nature as a marketing company, is only too happy to persuade the gullible that the two different counts are comparable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that certain other browsers ( Firefox and Safari ) experience many more security bugs these days , combined with the fact that none of these offer sandboxing , the recommendation does seem a bit odd .
The rest of your post , including the sandboxing point , deserves that 5 .
This one does n't belong on the same page .
Everyone paying attention can see that Firefox ( and open-source general practice ) reports and patches as critical security holes [ mozilla.org ] bugs for which there 's only theoretic or even just heuristic [ mozilla.org ] evidence of a potential security breach , while Microsoft 's usual reports are of bugs that have actually been exploited and are often actually leaking data in the wild , and eventually releases patches for those .
Microsoft , understandably given their nature as a marketing company , is only too happy to persuade the gullible that the two different counts are comparable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that certain other browsers (Firefox and Safari) experience many more security bugs these days, combined with the fact that none of these offer sandboxing, the recommendation does seem a bit odd.
The rest of your post, including the sandboxing point,  deserves that 5.
This one doesn't belong on the same page.
Everyone paying attention can see that Firefox (and open-source general practice) reports and patches  as critical security holes [mozilla.org]  bugs for which  there's only theoretic or even just heuristic [mozilla.org] evidence of a potential security breach, while Microsoft's usual reports are of bugs that have actually been exploited and are often actually leaking data in the wild, and eventually releases patches for those.
Microsoft, understandably given their nature as a marketing company, is only too happy to persuade the gullible that the two different counts are comparable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790952</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1263663360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There are still a lot of websites out there which will not just tell you to take a hike if you are not using IE, but actually run JavaScript tests to check if someone spoofed the user agent field.</i>
<p>
A lot?
</p><p>
I haven't seen any for years.
</p><p>
Examples please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still a lot of websites out there which will not just tell you to take a hike if you are not using IE , but actually run JavaScript tests to check if someone spoofed the user agent field .
A lot ?
I have n't seen any for years .
Examples please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still a lot of websites out there which will not just tell you to take a hike if you are not using IE, but actually run JavaScript tests to check if someone spoofed the user agent field.
A lot?
I haven't seen any for years.
Examples please?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792114</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263671460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should never run IE outside of a virtual machine. It just is not safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should never run IE outside of a virtual machine .
It just is not safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should never run IE outside of a virtual machine.
It just is not safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790838</id>
	<title>The CURE (TM)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263662580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop using Windoze or anything created by M$, since it is clear the US government is ever going to hold them responsible for anything. It is all a crock of shit.<br><br>And if you have to, run it in a VM, set up so you can re-image the C: drive at any time.<br><br>If US law worked, vide SCO v IBM, M$ would have been sued into bankruptcy years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop using Windoze or anything created by M $ , since it is clear the US government is ever going to hold them responsible for anything .
It is all a crock of shit.And if you have to , run it in a VM , set up so you can re-image the C : drive at any time.If US law worked , vide SCO v IBM , M $ would have been sued into bankruptcy years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop using Windoze or anything created by M$, since it is clear the US government is ever going to hold them responsible for anything.
It is all a crock of shit.And if you have to, run it in a VM, set up so you can re-image the C: drive at any time.If US law worked, vide SCO v IBM, M$ would have been sued into bankruptcy years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790320</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263657780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course you didn't browse the Internet being a member of Administrators group?  Did you use Vista or 7 with protected mode enabled and vulnerable plugins from third parties like Adobe disabled?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course you did n't browse the Internet being a member of Administrators group ?
Did you use Vista or 7 with protected mode enabled and vulnerable plugins from third parties like Adobe disabled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course you didn't browse the Internet being a member of Administrators group?
Did you use Vista or 7 with protected mode enabled and vulnerable plugins from third parties like Adobe disabled?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791614</id>
	<title>I hate IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263667800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My friend lives in an apartment complex where the main office set up for its residents to use has IE 6 on it.  It's locked down and no one can update it.  I talked to the manager about it and she said it's corporate's job.   Wonderful.  For at least a "computer lab" for regular people, I think it would be necessary to update IE to the latest version.  Or at least offer an alternative browser.</p><p>I almost died the other day when I saw my public library computers all using IE 6, and people were surfing the Internet with it.</p><p>I want to say "I hate IE 6", but I think I don't like IE 7 either.  In the public school system here, all the systems use IE 7 and it's slow as hell.  I was trying to give a presentation the other day and every time I had to click a link on a website to show people something on a website, it would take forever to load.  Of course, I blame some of this also on the terribly configured computers, but I'm pretty sure Firefox/Chrome would have loaded everything instantly.</p><p>In other words, I hate IE 6 the most.  IE 7 still sucks.  IE 8 is the only version of IE I would allow myself to use if I absolutely had to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend lives in an apartment complex where the main office set up for its residents to use has IE 6 on it .
It 's locked down and no one can update it .
I talked to the manager about it and she said it 's corporate 's job .
Wonderful. For at least a " computer lab " for regular people , I think it would be necessary to update IE to the latest version .
Or at least offer an alternative browser.I almost died the other day when I saw my public library computers all using IE 6 , and people were surfing the Internet with it.I want to say " I hate IE 6 " , but I think I do n't like IE 7 either .
In the public school system here , all the systems use IE 7 and it 's slow as hell .
I was trying to give a presentation the other day and every time I had to click a link on a website to show people something on a website , it would take forever to load .
Of course , I blame some of this also on the terribly configured computers , but I 'm pretty sure Firefox/Chrome would have loaded everything instantly.In other words , I hate IE 6 the most .
IE 7 still sucks .
IE 8 is the only version of IE I would allow myself to use if I absolutely had to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend lives in an apartment complex where the main office set up for its residents to use has IE 6 on it.
It's locked down and no one can update it.
I talked to the manager about it and she said it's corporate's job.
Wonderful.  For at least a "computer lab" for regular people, I think it would be necessary to update IE to the latest version.
Or at least offer an alternative browser.I almost died the other day when I saw my public library computers all using IE 6, and people were surfing the Internet with it.I want to say "I hate IE 6", but I think I don't like IE 7 either.
In the public school system here, all the systems use IE 7 and it's slow as hell.
I was trying to give a presentation the other day and every time I had to click a link on a website to show people something on a website, it would take forever to load.
Of course, I blame some of this also on the terribly configured computers, but I'm pretty sure Firefox/Chrome would have loaded everything instantly.In other words, I hate IE 6 the most.
IE 7 still sucks.
IE 8 is the only version of IE I would allow myself to use if I absolutely had to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790510</id>
	<title>Name of the Government Organization</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1263659520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Germany actually has a dedicated federal office just for information security. They gave this recommendation; in German it is called "Bundesamt f&#252;r Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik".
They also give out recommendations on how to secure private and corporate networks which are quite useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Germany actually has a dedicated federal office just for information security .
They gave this recommendation ; in German it is called " Bundesamt f   r Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik " .
They also give out recommendations on how to secure private and corporate networks which are quite useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Germany actually has a dedicated federal office just for information security.
They gave this recommendation; in German it is called "Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik".
They also give out recommendations on how to secure private and corporate networks which are quite useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500</id>
	<title>IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263659340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE6 will never die. I wish it would, to be honest; I agree that I hate IE6 with a passion as a web developer and wish it would go the way of the dinosaur.
<br> <br>
However, here's a little anecdote of why IE6 will never die:
<br> <br>
Company that uses a COTS product that runs ONLY on IE6 and fails to work on any other browser, refuses to upgrade from IE6. 2020 will likely roll around, and they will still be using IE6.  This COTS product is irreplaceable and they use it for their core business.
<br> <br>
Now, you may think the previous anecdote is laughable and never happens. I can tell you personally, that it is true.
<br> <br>
It makes me a sad panda<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( Especially when I realize there are so many people still using IE6 in that company that have opened themselves up to huge security breaches just by browsing the web.<br> <br>
Perhaps it will take some huge widespread event (like Operation Aurora) to change the minds of companies that rely on web products that only work in IE6, but I am not so sure.  The risks have to outweigh the benefits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE6 will never die .
I wish it would , to be honest ; I agree that I hate IE6 with a passion as a web developer and wish it would go the way of the dinosaur .
However , here 's a little anecdote of why IE6 will never die : Company that uses a COTS product that runs ONLY on IE6 and fails to work on any other browser , refuses to upgrade from IE6 .
2020 will likely roll around , and they will still be using IE6 .
This COTS product is irreplaceable and they use it for their core business .
Now , you may think the previous anecdote is laughable and never happens .
I can tell you personally , that it is true .
It makes me a sad panda : ( Especially when I realize there are so many people still using IE6 in that company that have opened themselves up to huge security breaches just by browsing the web .
Perhaps it will take some huge widespread event ( like Operation Aurora ) to change the minds of companies that rely on web products that only work in IE6 , but I am not so sure .
The risks have to outweigh the benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE6 will never die.
I wish it would, to be honest; I agree that I hate IE6 with a passion as a web developer and wish it would go the way of the dinosaur.
However, here's a little anecdote of why IE6 will never die:
 
Company that uses a COTS product that runs ONLY on IE6 and fails to work on any other browser, refuses to upgrade from IE6.
2020 will likely roll around, and they will still be using IE6.
This COTS product is irreplaceable and they use it for their core business.
Now, you may think the previous anecdote is laughable and never happens.
I can tell you personally, that it is true.
It makes me a sad panda :( Especially when I realize there are so many people still using IE6 in that company that have opened themselves up to huge security breaches just by browsing the web.
Perhaps it will take some huge widespread event (like Operation Aurora) to change the minds of companies that rely on web products that only work in IE6, but I am not so sure.
The risks have to outweigh the benefits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792408</id>
	<title>Re:Before anyone starts throwing stones...</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1263673740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So let me understand this:  You're counting Firefox bugs as a way to excuse Microsoft's shoddy security record with IE?  And you're not acknowledging all the bugs that were counted have been fixed unlike the vast number of open flaws that MS has.  You're also not acknowledging that in the open source model, flaws are shown to the world and not obscured.   This is different than the closed model where MS only discloses flaws at its whim.  There have been cases where MS sat on bugs for years before disclosing them and quickly patching.  This makes their "security" numbers look better because they have a short perceived turn around.  Also you're not rating the severity of the bugs.  A Firefox flaw that exposes user data might be less dangerous than say an IE bug that allows a remote takeover of a computer.   Even if Firefox has a bad security record when comparing apples and oranges, it still doesn't mean IE has a good track record.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me understand this : You 're counting Firefox bugs as a way to excuse Microsoft 's shoddy security record with IE ?
And you 're not acknowledging all the bugs that were counted have been fixed unlike the vast number of open flaws that MS has .
You 're also not acknowledging that in the open source model , flaws are shown to the world and not obscured .
This is different than the closed model where MS only discloses flaws at its whim .
There have been cases where MS sat on bugs for years before disclosing them and quickly patching .
This makes their " security " numbers look better because they have a short perceived turn around .
Also you 're not rating the severity of the bugs .
A Firefox flaw that exposes user data might be less dangerous than say an IE bug that allows a remote takeover of a computer .
Even if Firefox has a bad security record when comparing apples and oranges , it still does n't mean IE has a good track record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me understand this:  You're counting Firefox bugs as a way to excuse Microsoft's shoddy security record with IE?
And you're not acknowledging all the bugs that were counted have been fixed unlike the vast number of open flaws that MS has.
You're also not acknowledging that in the open source model, flaws are shown to the world and not obscured.
This is different than the closed model where MS only discloses flaws at its whim.
There have been cases where MS sat on bugs for years before disclosing them and quickly patching.
This makes their "security" numbers look better because they have a short perceived turn around.
Also you're not rating the severity of the bugs.
A Firefox flaw that exposes user data might be less dangerous than say an IE bug that allows a remote takeover of a computer.
Even if Firefox has a bad security record when comparing apples and oranges, it still doesn't mean IE has a good track record.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30796422</id>
	<title>Re:Use Foxit Reader</title>
	<author>illogicalpremise</author>
	<datestamp>1263670620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Foxit. Never had any trouble with it and never been bugged to pay for it either. Highly recommended. Adobe just make bloatware these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Foxit .
Never had any trouble with it and never been bugged to pay for it either .
Highly recommended .
Adobe just make bloatware these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Foxit.
Never had any trouble with it and never been bugged to pay for it either.
Highly recommended.
Adobe just make bloatware these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791088</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263664140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be like saying Chernobyl has some pretty good built-in protections that domestic nuclear plants lack, because they have to wrap another new sarcophagus around it every couple of years!</p><p>And because all of them will explode sometime.</p><p>Yeah, great argument!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be like saying Chernobyl has some pretty good built-in protections that domestic nuclear plants lack , because they have to wrap another new sarcophagus around it every couple of years ! And because all of them will explode sometime.Yeah , great argument !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be like saying Chernobyl has some pretty good built-in protections that domestic nuclear plants lack, because they have to wrap another new sarcophagus around it every couple of years!And because all of them will explode sometime.Yeah, great argument!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791554</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>CyclistOne</author>
	<datestamp>1263667500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This happened to a friend of mine.  His system was totally hijacked.  Couldn't run any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe.
I finally got into the registry and disabled the malware, and things were seemingly back to normal.  But we re-imaged the machine and restored his backed-up data.  It was a pain, but it didn't take that long.
But it was a similar thing, I think.  Firefox crashing - go try IE, and bang.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This happened to a friend of mine .
His system was totally hijacked .
Could n't run any .exe .
I finally got into the registry and disabled the malware , and things were seemingly back to normal .
But we re-imaged the machine and restored his backed-up data .
It was a pain , but it did n't take that long .
But it was a similar thing , I think .
Firefox crashing - go try IE , and bang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happened to a friend of mine.
His system was totally hijacked.
Couldn't run any .exe.
I finally got into the registry and disabled the malware, and things were seemingly back to normal.
But we re-imaged the machine and restored his backed-up data.
It was a pain, but it didn't take that long.
But it was a similar thing, I think.
Firefox crashing - go try IE, and bang.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30795626</id>
	<title>Governments want to socialize all software!</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1263657780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The computer industry has been one of the most free-market, most globalized, least regulated, least unionized, most wealth-producing industries to come along in decades, so the socialist governments obviously hate that, especially when its rapid growth makes it very clear how much government intervention hurts other industries, most notably energy production.  They want all software to be GPL'ed and mostly funded through government-controlled universities, and, like "net neutrality", they can then use it to further their own pro-government agenda.  Good products and services -- including software, be it proprietary or open source (ex. Chromium is licensed as BSD) -- come from free market competition, not government force!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The computer industry has been one of the most free-market , most globalized , least regulated , least unionized , most wealth-producing industries to come along in decades , so the socialist governments obviously hate that , especially when its rapid growth makes it very clear how much government intervention hurts other industries , most notably energy production .
They want all software to be GPL'ed and mostly funded through government-controlled universities , and , like " net neutrality " , they can then use it to further their own pro-government agenda .
Good products and services -- including software , be it proprietary or open source ( ex .
Chromium is licensed as BSD ) -- come from free market competition , not government force !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The computer industry has been one of the most free-market, most globalized, least regulated, least unionized, most wealth-producing industries to come along in decades, so the socialist governments obviously hate that, especially when its rapid growth makes it very clear how much government intervention hurts other industries, most notably energy production.
They want all software to be GPL'ed and mostly funded through government-controlled universities, and, like "net neutrality", they can then use it to further their own pro-government agenda.
Good products and services -- including software, be it proprietary or open source (ex.
Chromium is licensed as BSD) -- come from free market competition, not government force!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790992</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>blai</author>
	<datestamp>1263663600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>he was trying to open

<a href="http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/reader\_overview.pdf" title="adobe.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/reader\_overview.pdf</a> [adobe.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>he was trying to open http : //www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/reader \ _overview.pdf [ adobe.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he was trying to open

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/reader\_overview.pdf [adobe.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791420</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263666480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that the fact that FireFox was crashing shows that its also effected by the exploit that hit IE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... right?</p><p>The ignorance in your post and the fanboys that drool over this sort of thing is mind boggling and is a good example of why people outside of slashdot don't take you or FireFox seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that the fact that FireFox was crashing shows that its also effected by the exploit that hit IE ... right ? The ignorance in your post and the fanboys that drool over this sort of thing is mind boggling and is a good example of why people outside of slashdot do n't take you or FireFox seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that the fact that FireFox was crashing shows that its also effected by the exploit that hit IE ... right?The ignorance in your post and the fanboys that drool over this sort of thing is mind boggling and is a good example of why people outside of slashdot don't take you or FireFox seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790168</id>
	<title>File suit, not just follow suit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263655860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Given that the exploit has now been made public and the patch from Microsoft is still nowhere to be seen, how long will it be before other governments <b>follow suit</b>?</p></div><p>Surely you mean <b>file suit</b>. IE is so widespread that it should be possible for it to be treated like a public utility and then sue Microsoft despite their "no warranty" EULA clause. Cory Doctorow, we need your input on this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the exploit has now been made public and the patch from Microsoft is still nowhere to be seen , how long will it be before other governments follow suit ? Surely you mean file suit .
IE is so widespread that it should be possible for it to be treated like a public utility and then sue Microsoft despite their " no warranty " EULA clause .
Cory Doctorow , we need your input on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the exploit has now been made public and the patch from Microsoft is still nowhere to be seen, how long will it be before other governments follow suit?Surely you mean file suit.
IE is so widespread that it should be possible for it to be treated like a public utility and then sue Microsoft despite their "no warranty" EULA clause.
Cory Doctorow, we need your input on this.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791690</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Dupple</author>
	<datestamp>1263668340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah, give us the link, I'm feeling brave. I'll do it in Tiger and Safari, or another combination.<br><br>Sorry, I meant to say 'citation needed'</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , give us the link , I 'm feeling brave .
I 'll do it in Tiger and Safari , or another combination.Sorry , I meant to say 'citation needed'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, give us the link, I'm feeling brave.
I'll do it in Tiger and Safari, or another combination.Sorry, I meant to say 'citation needed'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791534</id>
	<title>Complete translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263667320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a previously unknown security issue in Internet Explorer. The vulnerability allows attackers to inject and execute malicious code "into" Windows computers. The attack on Google and other US-based companies that was publicized last week probably used this vulnerability.</p><p>The affected versions of Internet Explorer are 6, 7, and 8, on Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Microsoft released a security advisory that describes possibilities for risk mitigation and is already working on a patch that would fix the vulnerability. The BSI expects that this vulnerability will soon be used on the internet for attacks.</p><p>Executing Internet Explorer in "safe mode" and turning off "Acitve Scripting" [sic] makes attacks more difficult, but can't prevent them completely. Therefore, the BSI recommends that you use a different browser <b>until</b> Microsoft produces a patch.</p><p>The BSI will announce the fix of the vulnerability via its warning and information service "Burger-CERT." The BSI informs and warns citizens and small and middle-class companies about viruses, worms, and security vulnerabilities in applications using the Burger-CERT. The experts at the BSI analyze the current state of affairs regarding security on the internet 24/7 and send warnings and security advice via email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a previously unknown security issue in Internet Explorer .
The vulnerability allows attackers to inject and execute malicious code " into " Windows computers .
The attack on Google and other US-based companies that was publicized last week probably used this vulnerability.The affected versions of Internet Explorer are 6 , 7 , and 8 , on Windows XP , Vista , and Windows 7 .
Microsoft released a security advisory that describes possibilities for risk mitigation and is already working on a patch that would fix the vulnerability .
The BSI expects that this vulnerability will soon be used on the internet for attacks.Executing Internet Explorer in " safe mode " and turning off " Acitve Scripting " [ sic ] makes attacks more difficult , but ca n't prevent them completely .
Therefore , the BSI recommends that you use a different browser until Microsoft produces a patch.The BSI will announce the fix of the vulnerability via its warning and information service " Burger-CERT .
" The BSI informs and warns citizens and small and middle-class companies about viruses , worms , and security vulnerabilities in applications using the Burger-CERT .
The experts at the BSI analyze the current state of affairs regarding security on the internet 24/7 and send warnings and security advice via email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a previously unknown security issue in Internet Explorer.
The vulnerability allows attackers to inject and execute malicious code "into" Windows computers.
The attack on Google and other US-based companies that was publicized last week probably used this vulnerability.The affected versions of Internet Explorer are 6, 7, and 8, on Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7.
Microsoft released a security advisory that describes possibilities for risk mitigation and is already working on a patch that would fix the vulnerability.
The BSI expects that this vulnerability will soon be used on the internet for attacks.Executing Internet Explorer in "safe mode" and turning off "Acitve Scripting" [sic] makes attacks more difficult, but can't prevent them completely.
Therefore, the BSI recommends that you use a different browser until Microsoft produces a patch.The BSI will announce the fix of the vulnerability via its warning and information service "Burger-CERT.
" The BSI informs and warns citizens and small and middle-class companies about viruses, worms, and security vulnerabilities in applications using the Burger-CERT.
The experts at the BSI analyze the current state of affairs regarding security on the internet 24/7 and send warnings and security advice via email.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791494</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>jasen666</author>
	<datestamp>1263667020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, that is a bit scary.  I've run across sites that cause FF to crash from time to time, even with NoScript running.  It is not my first inclination to go and open that site in IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , that is a bit scary .
I 've run across sites that cause FF to crash from time to time , even with NoScript running .
It is not my first inclination to go and open that site in IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, that is a bit scary.
I've run across sites that cause FF to crash from time to time, even with NoScript running.
It is not my first inclination to go and open that site in IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791922</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>juancnuno</author>
	<datestamp>1263669900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As insecure as IE is, it really is only part of the problem. Were you running with administrator privileges at the time? If you were running as a limited user, as you and the rest of the world should, I doubt the damage would have been as extensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As insecure as IE is , it really is only part of the problem .
Were you running with administrator privileges at the time ?
If you were running as a limited user , as you and the rest of the world should , I doubt the damage would have been as extensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As insecure as IE is, it really is only part of the problem.
Were you running with administrator privileges at the time?
If you were running as a limited user, as you and the rest of the world should, I doubt the damage would have been as extensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30797284</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>ssimpson</author>
	<datestamp>1263730440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="https://secure1.globalexpense.com/ExpensesNet/login.aspx" title="globalexpense.com">https://secure1.globalexpense.com/ExpensesNet/login.aspx</a> [globalexpense.com] - painful as I have to use it every month for work related expenses</htmltext>
<tokenext>https : //secure1.globalexpense.com/ExpensesNet/login.aspx [ globalexpense.com ] - painful as I have to use it every month for work related expenses</tokentext>
<sentencetext>https://secure1.globalexpense.com/ExpensesNet/login.aspx [globalexpense.com] - painful as I have to use it every month for work related expenses</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790158</id>
	<title>It's not the "government"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263655740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a German federal agency, not the German government. And they warn users about IE every time there is a major unpatched security hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a German federal agency , not the German government .
And they warn users about IE every time there is a major unpatched security hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a German federal agency, not the German government.
And they warn users about IE every time there is a major unpatched security hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30793120</id>
	<title>Re:Before anyone starts throwing stones...</title>
	<author>ilguido</author>
	<datestamp>1263636480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla Firefox 3.5.x: <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">unpatched 0 of 6 Secunia advisories</a> [secunia.com].<br> <br>

MS Internet Explorer 8.x: <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">unpatched 4 of 8 Secunia advisories</a> [secunia.com].<br> <br>

MS Internet Explorer 7.x: <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">unpatched 11 of 42 Secunia advisories</a> [secunia.com].<br> <br>

Opera 10.x: <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">unpatched 0 of 3 Secunia advisories</a> [secunia.com].<br> <br>

I can't see your point, are you trolling?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla Firefox 3.5.x : unpatched 0 of 6 Secunia advisories [ secunia.com ] .
MS Internet Explorer 8.x : unpatched 4 of 8 Secunia advisories [ secunia.com ] .
MS Internet Explorer 7.x : unpatched 11 of 42 Secunia advisories [ secunia.com ] .
Opera 10.x : unpatched 0 of 3 Secunia advisories [ secunia.com ] .
I ca n't see your point , are you trolling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla Firefox 3.5.x: unpatched 0 of 6 Secunia advisories [secunia.com].
MS Internet Explorer 8.x: unpatched 4 of 8 Secunia advisories [secunia.com].
MS Internet Explorer 7.x: unpatched 11 of 42 Secunia advisories [secunia.com].
Opera 10.x: unpatched 0 of 3 Secunia advisories [secunia.com].
I can't see your point, are you trolling?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791156</id>
	<title>are you an actor or riaa person</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263664680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if so i have no pity for you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if so i have no pity for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if so i have no pity for you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790092</id>
	<title>Shouldn't they be upgrading before complaining?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263655200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"patch from Microsoft is still nowhere to be seen"<br> <br> <br>



Isn't it just easier to upgrade to IE 8?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" patch from Microsoft is still nowhere to be seen " Is n't it just easier to upgrade to IE 8 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"patch from Microsoft is still nowhere to be seen"  



Isn't it just easier to upgrade to IE 8?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790616</id>
	<title>Not the German Government</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1263660180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Bundesamt f&#252;r Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik" (BSI), engl. Federal Bureau for Security in Information Technology, is not a governmental, but a state institution. It is not strictly driven by the government. And it is controlled by the parliament. Even though it works in the domain of the ministry of the interior. So no minister was involved in the "do not use IE" speech.</p><p>BTW: IE has not the biggest market share in Germany.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Bundesamt f   r Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik " ( BSI ) , engl .
Federal Bureau for Security in Information Technology , is not a governmental , but a state institution .
It is not strictly driven by the government .
And it is controlled by the parliament .
Even though it works in the domain of the ministry of the interior .
So no minister was involved in the " do not use IE " speech.BTW : IE has not the biggest market share in Germany .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik" (BSI), engl.
Federal Bureau for Security in Information Technology, is not a governmental, but a state institution.
It is not strictly driven by the government.
And it is controlled by the parliament.
Even though it works in the domain of the ministry of the interior.
So no minister was involved in the "do not use IE" speech.BTW: IE has not the biggest market share in Germany.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790796</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1263662160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what version of windows ?</p><p>do you login as an admin by default ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what version of windows ? do you login as an admin by default ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what version of windows ?do you login as an admin by default ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30799728</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263755520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That hasn't happened to me... yet. At least not with PDF reader, I suspect flash was involved. Same thing - locked out of registry and everything. Plugins are becoming as much a security risk as browsers. That's why I uninstalled acrobat reader and replaced it with a 3rd party PDF reader. I've also got a plugin called flashblock installed on Firefox. And a sandbox setup as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That has n't happened to me... yet. At least not with PDF reader , I suspect flash was involved .
Same thing - locked out of registry and everything .
Plugins are becoming as much a security risk as browsers .
That 's why I uninstalled acrobat reader and replaced it with a 3rd party PDF reader .
I 've also got a plugin called flashblock installed on Firefox .
And a sandbox setup as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That hasn't happened to me... yet. At least not with PDF reader, I suspect flash was involved.
Same thing - locked out of registry and everything.
Plugins are becoming as much a security risk as browsers.
That's why I uninstalled acrobat reader and replaced it with a 3rd party PDF reader.
I've also got a plugin called flashblock installed on Firefox.
And a sandbox setup as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791968</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they can't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263670200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Can you try imagining your daily work depends on some intranet tool which only works in pre IE 8 and besides numerous claims by MS, IE 8 simply can't make that tool work?"</p><p>Imagine?  What's to imagine?  It's the sad truth.  I suspect that many people could cite examples.  I regularly use a piece of commercial database/web-front-end software that A) is specified to work only with IE 6 (no Firefox, no Opera, no Chrome, no nothing else, and, no, fooling with the user-agent string doesn't work), B) if you ignore the advice of the site and use IE 7 anyway, you can cajole it into reluctantly working most of the time, but with scads of annoying popups, errors, and confirmation dialogs that you can't eliminate even after practically giving the relevant website "god mode" permissions within IE 7, and C) IE 8 doesn't work at all.</p><p>The amazing thing is, this <i>highly expensive and specialized</i> software is built by a global company that has many decades of experience with this kind of database application, yet their software looks like it was written (poorly) in the 1990s and hasn't been updated properly since.  I'll save the embarrassment of naming them, but the situation is far from unique.  Bad programmers that fail to write to web standards are all over the place, and given the atrocity that is IE 6 "standards compliance", the problem of browser-specific code is a legacy that we won't soon be without, even with serious security flaws.  But, hey, if this spurs people to fix the defects in old web applications still dependent on IE 6, I'm all for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Can you try imagining your daily work depends on some intranet tool which only works in pre IE 8 and besides numerous claims by MS , IE 8 simply ca n't make that tool work ? " Imagine ?
What 's to imagine ?
It 's the sad truth .
I suspect that many people could cite examples .
I regularly use a piece of commercial database/web-front-end software that A ) is specified to work only with IE 6 ( no Firefox , no Opera , no Chrome , no nothing else , and , no , fooling with the user-agent string does n't work ) , B ) if you ignore the advice of the site and use IE 7 anyway , you can cajole it into reluctantly working most of the time , but with scads of annoying popups , errors , and confirmation dialogs that you ca n't eliminate even after practically giving the relevant website " god mode " permissions within IE 7 , and C ) IE 8 does n't work at all.The amazing thing is , this highly expensive and specialized software is built by a global company that has many decades of experience with this kind of database application , yet their software looks like it was written ( poorly ) in the 1990s and has n't been updated properly since .
I 'll save the embarrassment of naming them , but the situation is far from unique .
Bad programmers that fail to write to web standards are all over the place , and given the atrocity that is IE 6 " standards compliance " , the problem of browser-specific code is a legacy that we wo n't soon be without , even with serious security flaws .
But , hey , if this spurs people to fix the defects in old web applications still dependent on IE 6 , I 'm all for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can you try imagining your daily work depends on some intranet tool which only works in pre IE 8 and besides numerous claims by MS, IE 8 simply can't make that tool work?"Imagine?
What's to imagine?
It's the sad truth.
I suspect that many people could cite examples.
I regularly use a piece of commercial database/web-front-end software that A) is specified to work only with IE 6 (no Firefox, no Opera, no Chrome, no nothing else, and, no, fooling with the user-agent string doesn't work), B) if you ignore the advice of the site and use IE 7 anyway, you can cajole it into reluctantly working most of the time, but with scads of annoying popups, errors, and confirmation dialogs that you can't eliminate even after practically giving the relevant website "god mode" permissions within IE 7, and C) IE 8 doesn't work at all.The amazing thing is, this highly expensive and specialized software is built by a global company that has many decades of experience with this kind of database application, yet their software looks like it was written (poorly) in the 1990s and hasn't been updated properly since.
I'll save the embarrassment of naming them, but the situation is far from unique.
Bad programmers that fail to write to web standards are all over the place, and given the atrocity that is IE 6 "standards compliance", the problem of browser-specific code is a legacy that we won't soon be without, even with serious security flaws.
But, hey, if this spurs people to fix the defects in old web applications still dependent on IE 6, I'm all for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30797420</id>
	<title>Actually...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1263732540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BSI (a government agency and a subdivision of the Ministry of the Interior) issued a warning that people should use different browsers <b>until the hole has been fixed</b>.</p><p>Not quite the same, but still nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BSI ( a government agency and a subdivision of the Ministry of the Interior ) issued a warning that people should use different browsers until the hole has been fixed.Not quite the same , but still nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BSI (a government agency and a subdivision of the Ministry of the Interior) issued a warning that people should use different browsers until the hole has been fixed.Not quite the same, but still nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790154</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>MtHuurne</author>
	<datestamp>1263655620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think it still counts as a 0-day at this moment, since the vendor has been informed. I do agree that Firefox would benefit from sandboxing and other extra security measures, but those are no substitution for quick patching.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it still counts as a 0-day at this moment , since the vendor has been informed .
I do agree that Firefox would benefit from sandboxing and other extra security measures , but those are no substitution for quick patching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it still counts as a 0-day at this moment, since the vendor has been informed.
I do agree that Firefox would benefit from sandboxing and other extra security measures, but those are no substitution for quick patching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792850</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1263634080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The risks have to outweigh the benefits.</p></div><p>Make the risk bigger. If you run a web site, any web site, just put Aurora on it. This madness has to stop, and the earlier the better!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The risks have to outweigh the benefits.Make the risk bigger .
If you run a web site , any web site , just put Aurora on it .
This madness has to stop , and the earlier the better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The risks have to outweigh the benefits.Make the risk bigger.
If you run a web site, any web site, just put Aurora on it.
This madness has to stop, and the earlier the better!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790130</id>
	<title>Nostalgia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263655500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ah, the 'Good Old Days'!

</p><p>
Signed,<br> a Linux user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , the 'Good Old Days ' !
Signed , a Linux user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ah, the 'Good Old Days'!
Signed, a Linux user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791148</id>
	<title>Re:A stinging lesson</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1263664620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My solution: *do* take a hike and don't deal with the morons trying to shove IE down your throat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My solution : * do * take a hike and do n't deal with the morons trying to shove IE down your throat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My solution: *do* take a hike and don't deal with the morons trying to shove IE down your throat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790106</id>
	<title>what might be more to the point</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1263655320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to not goto dodgy fracking porn and wares sites</htmltext>
<tokenext>to not goto dodgy fracking porn and wares sites</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to not goto dodgy fracking porn and wares sites</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790892</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263663000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Java inherently has the ability to both write and execute code</p></div><p>But not at the same time.  One of the OpenBSD guys had to do with their port (which is now in mainstream), and which I helped implement for LLVM, is W^X support. DEP is Microsoft's implementation of W^X, i.e. no page may have both write and execute permission at the same time (although they only support it properly on CPUs with the NX bit; OpenBSD does it using horrible hacks involving relocating pages within segments in the absence of NX page protection).  That means that you can't execute data that you write into memory unless you issue a system call to change the page permission.  To do this you must already be able to make the program do what you want, so you need some other exploit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java inherently has the ability to both write and execute codeBut not at the same time .
One of the OpenBSD guys had to do with their port ( which is now in mainstream ) , and which I helped implement for LLVM , is W ^ X support .
DEP is Microsoft 's implementation of W ^ X , i.e .
no page may have both write and execute permission at the same time ( although they only support it properly on CPUs with the NX bit ; OpenBSD does it using horrible hacks involving relocating pages within segments in the absence of NX page protection ) .
That means that you ca n't execute data that you write into memory unless you issue a system call to change the page permission .
To do this you must already be able to make the program do what you want , so you need some other exploit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Java inherently has the ability to both write and execute codeBut not at the same time.
One of the OpenBSD guys had to do with their port (which is now in mainstream), and which I helped implement for LLVM, is W^X support.
DEP is Microsoft's implementation of W^X, i.e.
no page may have both write and execute permission at the same time (although they only support it properly on CPUs with the NX bit; OpenBSD does it using horrible hacks involving relocating pages within segments in the absence of NX page protection).
That means that you can't execute data that you write into memory unless you issue a system call to change the page permission.
To do this you must already be able to make the program do what you want, so you need some other exploit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791992</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263670320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You overestimate the problem in java, Java is not C in this regard, true there are String constants in the code, but the code itself runs in VM which makes it hard to break out and reach the system and secondly Strings overflows are impossible, this is a C phenomenon, so even you alter the strings on bytecode level, what do you achieve with it in the end, you just altered a constant, but you cannot push any code on this level causing any overflow.<br>But if you reach the bytecode level nothing prevents you from placing your own code anyway, so the discussion ends there because then you can alter your program on the fly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You overestimate the problem in java , Java is not C in this regard , true there are String constants in the code , but the code itself runs in VM which makes it hard to break out and reach the system and secondly Strings overflows are impossible , this is a C phenomenon , so even you alter the strings on bytecode level , what do you achieve with it in the end , you just altered a constant , but you can not push any code on this level causing any overflow.But if you reach the bytecode level nothing prevents you from placing your own code anyway , so the discussion ends there because then you can alter your program on the fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You overestimate the problem in java, Java is not C in this regard, true there are String constants in the code, but the code itself runs in VM which makes it hard to break out and reach the system and secondly Strings overflows are impossible, this is a C phenomenon, so even you alter the strings on bytecode level, what do you achieve with it in the end, you just altered a constant, but you cannot push any code on this level causing any overflow.But if you reach the bytecode level nothing prevents you from placing your own code anyway, so the discussion ends there because then you can alter your program on the fly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790252</id>
	<title>Perhaps they can't</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1263656880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you try imagining your daily work depends on some intranet tool which only works in pre IE 8 and besides numerous claims by MS, IE 8 simply can't make that tool work?</p><p>What would happen?</p><p>In fact, even if a tool has upgrade and released by vendor, you can't roll IE 8 to all the machines without testing it yourself in numerous scenarios. It is not like launching Windows Update and click all security updates blindly. Even on OS X, as 10.6 shipped, companies/DTP/Video guys have finally moved to 10.5.8. When 10.7 ships, they may move to 10.6. People can't trust to Apple for updates let alone blindly updating/patching their windows which is way more complex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you try imagining your daily work depends on some intranet tool which only works in pre IE 8 and besides numerous claims by MS , IE 8 simply ca n't make that tool work ? What would happen ? In fact , even if a tool has upgrade and released by vendor , you ca n't roll IE 8 to all the machines without testing it yourself in numerous scenarios .
It is not like launching Windows Update and click all security updates blindly .
Even on OS X , as 10.6 shipped , companies/DTP/Video guys have finally moved to 10.5.8 .
When 10.7 ships , they may move to 10.6 .
People ca n't trust to Apple for updates let alone blindly updating/patching their windows which is way more complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you try imagining your daily work depends on some intranet tool which only works in pre IE 8 and besides numerous claims by MS, IE 8 simply can't make that tool work?What would happen?In fact, even if a tool has upgrade and released by vendor, you can't roll IE 8 to all the machines without testing it yourself in numerous scenarios.
It is not like launching Windows Update and click all security updates blindly.
Even on OS X, as 10.6 shipped, companies/DTP/Video guys have finally moved to 10.5.8.
When 10.7 ships, they may move to 10.6.
People can't trust to Apple for updates let alone blindly updating/patching their windows which is way more complex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791222</id>
	<title>Re:Right Decision?</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1263665160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know what I'm talking about and IE8 64 bits in windows 7 is MUCH more secure than firefox. Too bad it doesn't have plguins like firefox and so I can't use it, but that's also part of why it's more secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know what I 'm talking about and IE8 64 bits in windows 7 is MUCH more secure than firefox .
Too bad it does n't have plguins like firefox and so I ca n't use it , but that 's also part of why it 's more secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know what I'm talking about and IE8 64 bits in windows 7 is MUCH more secure than firefox.
Too bad it doesn't have plguins like firefox and so I can't use it, but that's also part of why it's more secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791700</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't they be upgrading before complaining?</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1263668400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it's very expensive.  Now if MS had cared less about breaking the law and more about the quality of their code then perhaps things would be different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's very expensive .
Now if MS had cared less about breaking the law and more about the quality of their code then perhaps things would be different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's very expensive.
Now if MS had cared less about breaking the law and more about the quality of their code then perhaps things would be different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794924</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 is the zombie browser.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263649980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They might find themselves running IE6 in a VM for their ridiculous legacy app, and a modern browser for the actual internet.</p><p>Or they could upgrade their COTS product. It has to happen sooner or later,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They might find themselves running IE6 in a VM for their ridiculous legacy app , and a modern browser for the actual internet.Or they could upgrade their COTS product .
It has to happen sooner or later,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They might find themselves running IE6 in a VM for their ridiculous legacy app, and a modern browser for the actual internet.Or they could upgrade their COTS product.
It has to happen sooner or later,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30793066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30797284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30806794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30806688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30796544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30795626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30793120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30796422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30804748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30799728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_1239212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30793120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30795626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30799728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791044
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790952
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30797284
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791636
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790918
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30806794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30796544
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30806688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30796422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30804748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30793066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30794924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_1239212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30790892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30792370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_1239212.30791992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
