<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_1359237</id>
	<title>Newly-Found Windows Bug Affects All Versions Since NT</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264000620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>garg0yle writes <i>"A researcher has found a security bug that could allow privilege escalation in Windows.  Nothing new there, right?  Well, this affects the Virtual DOS Machine, found in <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/19/microsoft\_escalation\_bug/">every 32-bit version of Windows all the way back to Windows NT</a>. That's 17 years worth of Windows and counting. 'Using code written for the VDM, an unprivileged user can <a href="http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-01/0346.html">inject code of his choosing directly into the system's kernel</a>, making it possible to make changes to highly sensitive parts of the operating system. ... The vulnerability exists in all 32-bit versions of Microsoft OSes released since 1993, and proof-of-concept code works on the XP, Server 2003, Vista, Server 2008, and 7 versions of Windows, Ormandy reported.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>garg0yle writes " A researcher has found a security bug that could allow privilege escalation in Windows .
Nothing new there , right ?
Well , this affects the Virtual DOS Machine , found in every 32-bit version of Windows all the way back to Windows NT .
That 's 17 years worth of Windows and counting .
'Using code written for the VDM , an unprivileged user can inject code of his choosing directly into the system 's kernel , making it possible to make changes to highly sensitive parts of the operating system .
... The vulnerability exists in all 32-bit versions of Microsoft OSes released since 1993 , and proof-of-concept code works on the XP , Server 2003 , Vista , Server 2008 , and 7 versions of Windows , Ormandy reported .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>garg0yle writes "A researcher has found a security bug that could allow privilege escalation in Windows.
Nothing new there, right?
Well, this affects the Virtual DOS Machine, found in every 32-bit version of Windows all the way back to Windows NT.
That's 17 years worth of Windows and counting.
'Using code written for the VDM, an unprivileged user can inject code of his choosing directly into the system's kernel, making it possible to make changes to highly sensitive parts of the operating system.
... The vulnerability exists in all 32-bit versions of Microsoft OSes released since 1993, and proof-of-concept code works on the XP, Server 2003, Vista, Server 2008, and 7 versions of Windows, Ormandy reported.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832636</id>
	<title>How long until we see the NT4 patch?</title>
	<author>gimmebeer</author>
	<datestamp>1264006020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So much for 'nobody writes hacks for old stuff anymore, if we just keep running NT we'll never get hacked'

Sounded good at the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for 'nobody writes hacks for old stuff anymore , if we just keep running NT we 'll never get hacked ' Sounded good at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for 'nobody writes hacks for old stuff anymore, if we just keep running NT we'll never get hacked'

Sounded good at the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832206</id>
	<title>How do we know it's not already in use?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I read about one of these long-undiscovered instant pwn bugs, I always have to wonder if there's someone sitting deep underground in an NSA computer center saying "Well shit, looks like we'll not be using that exploit anymore."</p><p>Is this a hole nobody knew about or a hole nobody but the people who knew about it knew about, and those people weren't talking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I read about one of these long-undiscovered instant pwn bugs , I always have to wonder if there 's someone sitting deep underground in an NSA computer center saying " Well shit , looks like we 'll not be using that exploit anymore .
" Is this a hole nobody knew about or a hole nobody but the people who knew about it knew about , and those people were n't talking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I read about one of these long-undiscovered instant pwn bugs, I always have to wonder if there's someone sitting deep underground in an NSA computer center saying "Well shit, looks like we'll not be using that exploit anymore.
"Is this a hole nobody knew about or a hole nobody but the people who knew about it knew about, and those people weren't talking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833686</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: Technical stuff follows</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1264009560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DOSBox ftw?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DOSBox ftw ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DOSBox ftw?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834540</id>
	<title>Time to ditch legacy code</title>
	<author>derfla8</author>
	<datestamp>1264012860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps MS should finally grow some balls and ditch legacy code.  Just do it.  It's not about what the customer thinks they want, it's about progress.  Do it like Jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps MS should finally grow some balls and ditch legacy code .
Just do it .
It 's not about what the customer thinks they want , it 's about progress .
Do it like Jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps MS should finally grow some balls and ditch legacy code.
Just do it.
It's not about what the customer thinks they want, it's about progress.
Do it like Jobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832894</id>
	<title>Small, small world...</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1264006980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting co-incidence that you should bring up that example.  Tavis Ormandy, one of those who discovered the Linux kernel bug you mentioned, was also the one who posted the details on the Windows 16bit VDM bug that we're discussing here to Full Disclosure yesterday.  I guess he must like his code to be covered in cobwebs or something...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting co-incidence that you should bring up that example .
Tavis Ormandy , one of those who discovered the Linux kernel bug you mentioned , was also the one who posted the details on the Windows 16bit VDM bug that we 're discussing here to Full Disclosure yesterday .
I guess he must like his code to be covered in cobwebs or something.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting co-incidence that you should bring up that example.
Tavis Ormandy, one of those who discovered the Linux kernel bug you mentioned, was also the one who posted the details on the Windows 16bit VDM bug that we're discussing here to Full Disclosure yesterday.
I guess he must like his code to be covered in cobwebs or something...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832346</id>
	<title>Free time.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This bug was discovered by Tavis Ormandy.</p> </div><p>Tavis, you need a girlfriend.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This bug was discovered by Tavis Ormandy .
Tavis , you need a girlfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bug was discovered by Tavis Ormandy.
Tavis, you need a girlfriend.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30840688</id>
	<title>Workaround for WinXP</title>
	<author>xyu</author>
	<datestamp>1263995520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Summary of workaround for WinXP:
<br> <br>
start-&gt;run-&gt;gpedit.msc
<br> <br>
Navigate to:
<br> <br>
Local Computer Policy -&gt; Computer Configuration -&gt; Administrative Templates -&gt; Windows Components -&gt; Application Compatibility -&gt; Prevent access to 16-bit applications
<br> <br>
Select "enable".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary of workaround for WinXP : start- &gt; run- &gt; gpedit.msc Navigate to : Local Computer Policy - &gt; Computer Configuration - &gt; Administrative Templates - &gt; Windows Components - &gt; Application Compatibility - &gt; Prevent access to 16-bit applications Select " enable " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary of workaround for WinXP:
 
start-&gt;run-&gt;gpedit.msc
 
Navigate to:
 
Local Computer Policy -&gt; Computer Configuration -&gt; Administrative Templates -&gt; Windows Components -&gt; Application Compatibility -&gt; Prevent access to 16-bit applications
 
Select "enable".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834984</id>
	<title>Good thing</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1264014900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good thing im running windows 7 64 bit then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing im running windows 7 64 bit then : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing im running windows 7 64 bit then :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835674</id>
	<title>exploit as published doesn't work</title>
	<author>chentiangemalc</author>
	<datestamp>1264017180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've tested the exploit in virtual machine in Windows 7 x32 and Windows XP SP3 and it doesn't work.  These are default installs of OS with no config changes. When run in Windows 7 x32 as Administrator it did cause BSOD. Running as standard user it did nothing, the process supposed to have escalated priviliges did not.

anybody else found it working?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tested the exploit in virtual machine in Windows 7 x32 and Windows XP SP3 and it does n't work .
These are default installs of OS with no config changes .
When run in Windows 7 x32 as Administrator it did cause BSOD .
Running as standard user it did nothing , the process supposed to have escalated priviliges did not .
anybody else found it working ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tested the exploit in virtual machine in Windows 7 x32 and Windows XP SP3 and it doesn't work.
These are default installs of OS with no config changes.
When run in Windows 7 x32 as Administrator it did cause BSOD.
Running as standard user it did nothing, the process supposed to have escalated priviliges did not.
anybody else found it working?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833232</id>
	<title>I told you!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 98SE rules!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 98SE rules !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 98SE rules!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358</id>
	<title>64 Bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs. Seriously. What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs .
Seriously. What 's the point of using half the power of your CPU ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs.
Seriously. What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908</id>
	<title>WARNING: Technical stuff follows</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1264007040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vulnerability applies to 32-bit Microsoft Windows operating systems with Windows NT 3.5 heritage.</p><p>Vulnerability arises from ancient coding or design flaws in the MS-DOS execution subsystem. This subsystem is not present in 64-bit Windows OSs.</p><p>The workaround is to disable the MS-DOS subsystem.</p><p>Great article at the SANS Institute Internet Storm Center: <a href="http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=8023" title="sans.org">http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=8023</a> [sans.org]. This includes links to Youtube videos on how to use Windows Group Policy tools to disable this subsystem.</p><p>However, once you do this, you won't be able to run 16-bit DOS-based software, so if you really need that you may have to wait for a patch. Or build a dedicated DOS machine, where at least you'll have no illusions of security. (Cynics would say this is true of any MS operating system, but I leave that debate to others.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vulnerability applies to 32-bit Microsoft Windows operating systems with Windows NT 3.5 heritage.Vulnerability arises from ancient coding or design flaws in the MS-DOS execution subsystem .
This subsystem is not present in 64-bit Windows OSs.The workaround is to disable the MS-DOS subsystem.Great article at the SANS Institute Internet Storm Center : http : //isc.sans.org/diary.html ? storyid = 8023 [ sans.org ] .
This includes links to Youtube videos on how to use Windows Group Policy tools to disable this subsystem.However , once you do this , you wo n't be able to run 16-bit DOS-based software , so if you really need that you may have to wait for a patch .
Or build a dedicated DOS machine , where at least you 'll have no illusions of security .
( Cynics would say this is true of any MS operating system , but I leave that debate to others .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vulnerability applies to 32-bit Microsoft Windows operating systems with Windows NT 3.5 heritage.Vulnerability arises from ancient coding or design flaws in the MS-DOS execution subsystem.
This subsystem is not present in 64-bit Windows OSs.The workaround is to disable the MS-DOS subsystem.Great article at the SANS Institute Internet Storm Center: http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=8023 [sans.org].
This includes links to Youtube videos on how to use Windows Group Policy tools to disable this subsystem.However, once you do this, you won't be able to run 16-bit DOS-based software, so if you really need that you may have to wait for a patch.
Or build a dedicated DOS machine, where at least you'll have no illusions of security.
(Cynics would say this is true of any MS operating system, but I leave that debate to others.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832400</id>
	<title>Windows 7</title>
	<author>wwwillem</author>
	<datestamp>1264005240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the RFA: <i>"He said he informed Microsoft security employees of the vulnerability in June"</i>.</p><p>So, Microsoft could at least have fixed this in Windows 7 (according to Wikipedia: "released to manufacturing on July 22, 2009").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the RFA : " He said he informed Microsoft security employees of the vulnerability in June " .So , Microsoft could at least have fixed this in Windows 7 ( according to Wikipedia : " released to manufacturing on July 22 , 2009 " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the RFA: "He said he informed Microsoft security employees of the vulnerability in June".So, Microsoft could at least have fixed this in Windows 7 (according to Wikipedia: "released to manufacturing on July 22, 2009").</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833162</id>
	<title>Not "Newly-Found"</title>
	<author>Len</author>
	<datestamp>1264007880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft was informed about this vulnerability on 12-Jun-2009, and they
confirmed receipt of my report on 22-Jun-2009.
Regrettably, no official patch is currently available. As an effective and easy
to deploy workaround is available, I have concluded that it is in the best
interest of users to go ahead with the publication of this document without an
official patch.</p></div></blockquote><p>from <a href="http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-01/0346.html" title="neohapsis.com">Tavis Ormandy's disclosure</a> [neohapsis.com] </p><p>So the bug was found six months ago, but Microsoft only decided it was serious enough to fix after it was publicized. Seems like another case of "responsible disclosure" being used to cover up a vulnerability, instead of fixing it (or publishing a workaround) before the bad guys find out about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft was informed about this vulnerability on 12-Jun-2009 , and they confirmed receipt of my report on 22-Jun-2009 .
Regrettably , no official patch is currently available .
As an effective and easy to deploy workaround is available , I have concluded that it is in the best interest of users to go ahead with the publication of this document without an official patch.from Tavis Ormandy 's disclosure [ neohapsis.com ] So the bug was found six months ago , but Microsoft only decided it was serious enough to fix after it was publicized .
Seems like another case of " responsible disclosure " being used to cover up a vulnerability , instead of fixing it ( or publishing a workaround ) before the bad guys find out about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft was informed about this vulnerability on 12-Jun-2009, and they
confirmed receipt of my report on 22-Jun-2009.
Regrettably, no official patch is currently available.
As an effective and easy
to deploy workaround is available, I have concluded that it is in the best
interest of users to go ahead with the publication of this document without an
official patch.from Tavis Ormandy's disclosure [neohapsis.com] So the bug was found six months ago, but Microsoft only decided it was serious enough to fix after it was publicized.
Seems like another case of "responsible disclosure" being used to cover up a vulnerability, instead of fixing it (or publishing a workaround) before the bad guys find out about it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833298</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: Technical stuff follows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Microsoft could replace their VDM with DosBox running OpenDos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Microsoft could replace their VDM with DosBox running OpenDos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Microsoft could replace their VDM with DosBox running OpenDos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30840706</id>
	<title>But how do I secure my PC?</title>
	<author>IceFoot</author>
	<datestamp>1263995580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is, <b>how do I secure my PC?</b>  And don't give me those Policy Groups buzzwords -- how many PC owners know what they mean?  Criminy, tell us which files to rename, which registry keys to change, or which services to turn off -- give us something simple and effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is , how do I secure my PC ?
And do n't give me those Policy Groups buzzwords -- how many PC owners know what they mean ?
Criminy , tell us which files to rename , which registry keys to change , or which services to turn off -- give us something simple and effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is, how do I secure my PC?
And don't give me those Policy Groups buzzwords -- how many PC owners know what they mean?
Criminy, tell us which files to rename, which registry keys to change, or which services to turn off -- give us something simple and effective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833834</id>
	<title>Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1264010100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am using Windows XP SP3 right now and the POC code provided does not work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am using Windows XP SP3 right now and the POC code provided does not work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am using Windows XP SP3 right now and the POC code provided does not work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834650</id>
	<title>Wasn't rewritten?</title>
	<author>palmerj3</author>
	<datestamp>1264013340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, you mean to tell me Microsoft lied all those times they claimed Windows was rewritten?  Didn't see that one coming...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you mean to tell me Microsoft lied all those times they claimed Windows was rewritten ?
Did n't see that one coming.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you mean to tell me Microsoft lied all those times they claimed Windows was rewritten?
Didn't see that one coming...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832408</id>
	<title>Re:64 Bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs. Seriously. What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you <i>really</i> believe a 32 bit OS uses half the power of your 64-bit CPU?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs .
Seriously. What 's the point of using half the power of your CPU ? Do you really believe a 32 bit OS uses half the power of your 64-bit CPU ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs.
Seriously. What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?Do you really believe a 32 bit OS uses half the power of your 64-bit CPU?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833450</id>
	<title>Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WINDOWRETPSM SUXXORZ!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WINDOWRETPSM SUXXORZ ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WINDOWRETPSM SUXXORZ!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30840924</id>
	<title>x64 all the way ! ;) :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am using x64 so I am ok<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am using x64 so I am ok ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am using x64 so I am ok ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841604</id>
	<title>Re:What still needs the Windows 16-bit subsystem?</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1264002780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In NT 4, they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT, some of which still ran in 16-bit mode, and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.</p></div><p>Nope, I use NT-based Windows a lot, and no I hasn't seen NTVDM pop up in the process list unless I deliberately run a 16-bit Windows or DOS app.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In NT 4 , they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT , some of which still ran in 16-bit mode , and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.Nope , I use NT-based Windows a lot , and no I has n't seen NTVDM pop up in the process list unless I deliberately run a 16-bit Windows or DOS app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In NT 4, they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT, some of which still ran in 16-bit mode, and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.Nope, I use NT-based Windows a lot, and no I hasn't seen NTVDM pop up in the process list unless I deliberately run a 16-bit Windows or DOS app.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835672</id>
	<title>Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1</title>
	<author>bpsheen</author>
	<datestamp>1264017180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell That to my wireless card which for some reason refuses to stay associated in Ubuntu when i connect via iwconfig , but in debian seems to just fine using of course iwconfig.

Hmmmm......


oh, btw , its a broadcom 4306. (i had to use the firmware)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell That to my wireless card which for some reason refuses to stay associated in Ubuntu when i connect via iwconfig , but in debian seems to just fine using of course iwconfig .
Hmmmm..... . oh , btw , its a broadcom 4306 .
( i had to use the firmware )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell That to my wireless card which for some reason refuses to stay associated in Ubuntu when i connect via iwconfig , but in debian seems to just fine using of course iwconfig.
Hmmmm......


oh, btw , its a broadcom 4306.
(i had to use the firmware)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834580</id>
	<title>Re:Warning: Clueless editor writes panic headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30840356</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: Technical stuff follows</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1263993480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Vulnerability applies to 32-bit Microsoft Windows operating systems with Windows NT 3.5 heritage.</p></div><p>So it is still OK to use Windows 95? That's a relief.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vulnerability applies to 32-bit Microsoft Windows operating systems with Windows NT 3.5 heritage.So it is still OK to use Windows 95 ?
That 's a relief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vulnerability applies to 32-bit Microsoft Windows operating systems with Windows NT 3.5 heritage.So it is still OK to use Windows 95?
That's a relief.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832518</id>
	<title>windows 7 64bit</title>
	<author>axor1337</author>
	<datestamp>1264005660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it looks Like one more reason to switch to 64bit to me. I have been using 64bit since Vista. Now I am glad I made the switch. and since the oem keys for vista and 7 are good for both the 32bit and 64bit versions the only excuse for not going 64bit is laziness (assuming you have a 64bit processor) I have yet to find a 32bit program that doesn't run on my 64bit machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it looks Like one more reason to switch to 64bit to me .
I have been using 64bit since Vista .
Now I am glad I made the switch .
and since the oem keys for vista and 7 are good for both the 32bit and 64bit versions the only excuse for not going 64bit is laziness ( assuming you have a 64bit processor ) I have yet to find a 32bit program that does n't run on my 64bit machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it looks Like one more reason to switch to 64bit to me.
I have been using 64bit since Vista.
Now I am glad I made the switch.
and since the oem keys for vista and 7 are good for both the 32bit and 64bit versions the only excuse for not going 64bit is laziness (assuming you have a 64bit processor) I have yet to find a 32bit program that doesn't run on my 64bit machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834444</id>
	<title>Re:"OSs released since 1993"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... Microsoft finally <b>starting</b> taking security seriously.</p></div><p>Where <b>starting</b> is the operative word.

Here is one indication of how far they still have to go:

</p><p>Visit the Microsoft Online Safety password checker (https://www.microsoft.com/protect/fraud/passwords/checker.aspx). Try &ldquo;Password1&rdquo;.

</p><p>Wow, a "Strong" password! They don&rsquo;t even do a simple dictionary check. Same is true in the OS from what I&rsquo;ve seen so far.

</p><p>How long has that been built into Linux?

</p><p>From what I&rsquo;ve seen in the field, dictionary attacks are the first thing malware attempts to gain control of a network.

</p><p>They are <b>just</b> starting to be serious about security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Microsoft finally starting taking security seriously.Where starting is the operative word .
Here is one indication of how far they still have to go : Visit the Microsoft Online Safety password checker ( https : //www.microsoft.com/protect/fraud/passwords/checker.aspx ) .
Try    Password1    .
Wow , a " Strong " password !
They don    t even do a simple dictionary check .
Same is true in the OS from what I    ve seen so far .
How long has that been built into Linux ?
From what I    ve seen in the field , dictionary attacks are the first thing malware attempts to gain control of a network .
They are just starting to be serious about security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Microsoft finally starting taking security seriously.Where starting is the operative word.
Here is one indication of how far they still have to go:

Visit the Microsoft Online Safety password checker (https://www.microsoft.com/protect/fraud/passwords/checker.aspx).
Try “Password1”.
Wow, a "Strong" password!
They don’t even do a simple dictionary check.
Same is true in the OS from what I’ve seen so far.
How long has that been built into Linux?
From what I’ve seen in the field, dictionary attacks are the first thing malware attempts to gain control of a network.
They are just starting to be serious about security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30839600</id>
	<title>As if...</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1263989940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> . 'Using code written for the VDM, an unprivileged user can inject code of his choosing directly into the system's kernel,</p> </div><p>As if 99\% of all Windows users aren't already running as root.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
'Using code written for the VDM , an unprivileged user can inject code of his choosing directly into the system 's kernel , As if 99 \ % of all Windows users are n't already running as root .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
'Using code written for the VDM, an unprivileged user can inject code of his choosing directly into the system's kernel, As if 99\% of all Windows users aren't already running as root.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30838674</id>
	<title>Re:Not "Newly-Found"</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1263985920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He gave them <i>10 days</i> to find the problem, invent a correct fix for it, a fix that works on all supported releases of Windows, quality test it, compatibility test it on thousands of configurations and against all the major pieces of 16-bit software that are still in use, and release it, and he was surprised when that didn't happen? What a dick.</p><p>I'm not thinking "What a bunch of losers, they waited six months then busted the thing out in a single day when they got called on it." I'm thinking "Wow, I'm pretty impressed they were able to do that in only six months."</p><p>People like you (and Ormandy) seem to have NO FREAKING IDEA how something as enormous as Windows is developed. I suppose you'd prefer they slam out a rough-cut patch in 24 hours, only to discover later that it introduces ADDITIONAL problems and vulnerabilities, and well I guess that's awesome for you because then you get to bitch at them for that as well. Get a real job and write some real software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He gave them 10 days to find the problem , invent a correct fix for it , a fix that works on all supported releases of Windows , quality test it , compatibility test it on thousands of configurations and against all the major pieces of 16-bit software that are still in use , and release it , and he was surprised when that did n't happen ?
What a dick.I 'm not thinking " What a bunch of losers , they waited six months then busted the thing out in a single day when they got called on it .
" I 'm thinking " Wow , I 'm pretty impressed they were able to do that in only six months .
" People like you ( and Ormandy ) seem to have NO FREAKING IDEA how something as enormous as Windows is developed .
I suppose you 'd prefer they slam out a rough-cut patch in 24 hours , only to discover later that it introduces ADDITIONAL problems and vulnerabilities , and well I guess that 's awesome for you because then you get to bitch at them for that as well .
Get a real job and write some real software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He gave them 10 days to find the problem, invent a correct fix for it, a fix that works on all supported releases of Windows, quality test it, compatibility test it on thousands of configurations and against all the major pieces of 16-bit software that are still in use, and release it, and he was surprised when that didn't happen?
What a dick.I'm not thinking "What a bunch of losers, they waited six months then busted the thing out in a single day when they got called on it.
" I'm thinking "Wow, I'm pretty impressed they were able to do that in only six months.
"People like you (and Ormandy) seem to have NO FREAKING IDEA how something as enormous as Windows is developed.
I suppose you'd prefer they slam out a rough-cut patch in 24 hours, only to discover later that it introduces ADDITIONAL problems and vulnerabilities, and well I guess that's awesome for you because then you get to bitch at them for that as well.
Get a real job and write some real software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832696</id>
	<title>Re:64 Bit</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264006260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason that this bug doesn't affect Win64 is that the virtual DOS mode is not supported at all on these platforms.  If you upgrade to a 64-bit version of Windows, you lose compatibility with all DOS and Win16 apps, unless you use an emulator.  For some people, especially people with business apps written for Win3.11, this is a show stopper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason that this bug does n't affect Win64 is that the virtual DOS mode is not supported at all on these platforms .
If you upgrade to a 64-bit version of Windows , you lose compatibility with all DOS and Win16 apps , unless you use an emulator .
For some people , especially people with business apps written for Win3.11 , this is a show stopper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason that this bug doesn't affect Win64 is that the virtual DOS mode is not supported at all on these platforms.
If you upgrade to a 64-bit version of Windows, you lose compatibility with all DOS and Win16 apps, unless you use an emulator.
For some people, especially people with business apps written for Win3.11, this is a show stopper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834574</id>
	<title>Oh Snap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834662</id>
	<title>Don't understand the hate</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1264013400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not getting a lot of these posts.  Microsoft is a software business, not a computer science business.  I think some of you may be confusing one for the other.  This is par for the course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not getting a lot of these posts .
Microsoft is a software business , not a computer science business .
I think some of you may be confusing one for the other .
This is par for the course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not getting a lot of these posts.
Microsoft is a software business, not a computer science business.
I think some of you may be confusing one for the other.
This is par for the course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833062</id>
	<title>Just a matter of time before...</title>
	<author>robot256</author>
	<datestamp>1264007520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the German and French governments advise their citizens against using Windows altogether, not just Internet Explorer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the German and French governments advise their citizens against using Windows altogether , not just Internet Explorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the German and French governments advise their citizens against using Windows altogether, not just Internet Explorer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832880</id>
	<title>Re:But does it run on Linux?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1264006920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is  how much faster it was fixed once it was discovered, and how much less work and money that it takes to run a new version of Linux. Switching from a vulnerable Win2K or NT to 7 is a VERY costly endeavor. Switching to a new version of Linux is not nearly as big of an undertaking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is how much faster it was fixed once it was discovered , and how much less work and money that it takes to run a new version of Linux .
Switching from a vulnerable Win2K or NT to 7 is a VERY costly endeavor .
Switching to a new version of Linux is not nearly as big of an undertaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is  how much faster it was fixed once it was discovered, and how much less work and money that it takes to run a new version of Linux.
Switching from a vulnerable Win2K or NT to 7 is a VERY costly endeavor.
Switching to a new version of Linux is not nearly as big of an undertaking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832526</id>
	<title>Just in time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess windows 7 sales were a bit sluggish, so here comes a new bug they can fix in windows 8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess windows 7 sales were a bit sluggish , so here comes a new bug they can fix in windows 8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess windows 7 sales were a bit sluggish, so here comes a new bug they can fix in windows 8.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832308</id>
	<title>Doesn't affect 64-bit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another driving factor for using the 64-bit editions of Windows (or something completely different from Windows altogether!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another driving factor for using the 64-bit editions of Windows ( or something completely different from Windows altogether !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another driving factor for using the 64-bit editions of Windows (or something completely different from Windows altogether!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834130</id>
	<title>Virtualization to the rescue!</title>
	<author>gblues</author>
	<datestamp>1264011300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Certainly the best way to eliminate this threat is to do away with the NTVDM altogether and use virtualization, similar to how Windows 7 Pro has "XP Mode." Microsoft should create a virtual HD (*.vhd) file with MS-DOS 6.22 installed on it and then offer it as a free download. Users could either use Virtual PC or the virtualization solution of their choice (VirtualBox, VMWare, etc).</p><p>DOSBox is also a decent solution, although it is geared more towards DOS games than to completely and accurately emulating MS-DOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly the best way to eliminate this threat is to do away with the NTVDM altogether and use virtualization , similar to how Windows 7 Pro has " XP Mode .
" Microsoft should create a virtual HD ( * .vhd ) file with MS-DOS 6.22 installed on it and then offer it as a free download .
Users could either use Virtual PC or the virtualization solution of their choice ( VirtualBox , VMWare , etc ) .DOSBox is also a decent solution , although it is geared more towards DOS games than to completely and accurately emulating MS-DOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly the best way to eliminate this threat is to do away with the NTVDM altogether and use virtualization, similar to how Windows 7 Pro has "XP Mode.
" Microsoft should create a virtual HD (*.vhd) file with MS-DOS 6.22 installed on it and then offer it as a free download.
Users could either use Virtual PC or the virtualization solution of their choice (VirtualBox, VMWare, etc).DOSBox is also a decent solution, although it is geared more towards DOS games than to completely and accurately emulating MS-DOS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832998</id>
	<title>Re:"OSs released since 1993"</title>
	<author>arhhook</author>
	<datestamp>1264007280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just not fair to go digging 14 years prior to the date when  Microsoft finally starting taking security seriously.</p></div><p>Yes, forget every system that may still be running these OS's! I stand they didn't start taking security seriously until "Cancel/Allow," so how dare you dig any further for vulnerabilities!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just not fair to go digging 14 years prior to the date when Microsoft finally starting taking security seriously.Yes , forget every system that may still be running these OS 's !
I stand they did n't start taking security seriously until " Cancel/Allow , " so how dare you dig any further for vulnerabilities !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just not fair to go digging 14 years prior to the date when  Microsoft finally starting taking security seriously.Yes, forget every system that may still be running these OS's!
I stand they didn't start taking security seriously until "Cancel/Allow," so how dare you dig any further for vulnerabilities!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834078</id>
	<title>Re:64 Bit</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264011120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs. Seriously. What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you <i>really</i> believe a 32 bit OS uses half the power of your 64-bit CPU?</p></div><p>THe other half of the CPU gets turned off doesn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs .
Seriously. What 's the point of using half the power of your CPU ? Do you really believe a 32 bit OS uses half the power of your 64-bit CPU ? THe other half of the CPU gets turned off does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs.
Seriously. What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?Do you really believe a 32 bit OS uses half the power of your 64-bit CPU?THe other half of the CPU gets turned off doesn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832220</id>
	<title>But does it run on Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, I guess it wouldn't, would it?<br> <br>
Someone had to say it though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I guess it would n't , would it ?
Someone had to say it though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I guess it wouldn't, would it?
Someone had to say it though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832516</id>
	<title>Re:64 Bit</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1264005660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?</p></div><p>That's more like what a single-threaded app would do on a dual core system, and quite far from what a 32-bit app would do on a 64-bit capable CPU. It's not that simple.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the point of using half the power of your CPU ? That 's more like what a single-threaded app would do on a dual core system , and quite far from what a 32-bit app would do on a 64-bit capable CPU .
It 's not that simple .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?That's more like what a single-threaded app would do on a dual core system, and quite far from what a 32-bit app would do on a 64-bit capable CPU.
It's not that simple.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834018</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1264010880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know they had enough time to fix it before going RTM?</p><p>Now, if it's not fixed in the service pack, then I think you can complain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know they had enough time to fix it before going RTM ? Now , if it 's not fixed in the service pack , then I think you can complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know they had enough time to fix it before going RTM?Now, if it's not fixed in the service pack, then I think you can complain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832420</id>
	<title>32 bit?</title>
	<author>Ralz</author>
	<datestamp>1264005300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good job I run W7 64-bit then I guess.

I remember when I tried using XP64, what a pile of crap that was. I'm glad they have sorted the compatibility issues in newer releases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good job I run W7 64-bit then I guess .
I remember when I tried using XP64 , what a pile of crap that was .
I 'm glad they have sorted the compatibility issues in newer releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good job I run W7 64-bit then I guess.
I remember when I tried using XP64, what a pile of crap that was.
I'm glad they have sorted the compatibility issues in newer releases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30836204</id>
	<title>Well, you've changed my mind!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264019520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just gonna say "Windows is insecure! Film at 11:00"</p><p>But your deeply insightful comment got me thinking and I've amended my response to "Windows sucks! Fuck off shill."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just gon na say " Windows is insecure !
Film at 11 : 00 " But your deeply insightful comment got me thinking and I 've amended my response to " Windows sucks !
Fuck off shill .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just gonna say "Windows is insecure!
Film at 11:00"But your deeply insightful comment got me thinking and I've amended my response to "Windows sucks!
Fuck off shill.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832618</id>
	<title>What about other NT archs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the PowerPC version of NT? That's 32-bit too. And of course the DEC Alpha version is 64-bit, so it can't have that exploit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the PowerPC version of NT ?
That 's 32-bit too .
And of course the DEC Alpha version is 64-bit , so it ca n't have that exploit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the PowerPC version of NT?
That's 32-bit too.
And of course the DEC Alpha version is 64-bit, so it can't have that exploit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834494</id>
	<title>Excellent News : There is a Patch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a patch for not only this new bug in Windows, but every other bug, known or unknown.  This patch will also boost performance and even removes all of those pesky Windows bugs that is erroniously attributed to open source software such as Firefox, Openoffice.org, etc. Click <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/" title="ubuntu.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [ubuntu.com] for more info about the patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a patch for not only this new bug in Windows , but every other bug , known or unknown .
This patch will also boost performance and even removes all of those pesky Windows bugs that is erroniously attributed to open source software such as Firefox , Openoffice.org , etc .
Click here [ ubuntu.com ] for more info about the patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a patch for not only this new bug in Windows, but every other bug, known or unknown.
This patch will also boost performance and even removes all of those pesky Windows bugs that is erroniously attributed to open source software such as Firefox, Openoffice.org, etc.
Click here [ubuntu.com] for more info about the patch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834670</id>
	<title>Re:Warning: Clueless editor writes panic headline</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1264013460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not exactly sure you know how to use "whom" :<br><a href="http://web.ku.edu/~edit/whom.html" title="ku.edu">http://web.ku.edu/~edit/whom.html</a> [ku.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not exactly sure you know how to use " whom " : http : //web.ku.edu/ ~ edit/whom.html [ ku.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not exactly sure you know how to use "whom" :http://web.ku.edu/~edit/whom.html [ku.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833854</id>
	<title>Re:Brought it on yourself</title>
	<author>dc29A</author>
	<datestamp>1264010220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone still running only 32-bit Windows deserves the vulnerability.<br>This is just one more reason why people should be upgrading to 64-bit.</p></div><p>Yes because (insert computer illiterate person here) checking email, browsing Facebook or chatting on an IM needs a Quad Core CPU with 16 GB of Ram running Windows 7 Ultimate x64.</p><p>Not sure for you, but on the planet I live on, Earth, they don't. Most of my family members use Windows XP on 4+ year old machines, they are all happy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone still running only 32-bit Windows deserves the vulnerability.This is just one more reason why people should be upgrading to 64-bit.Yes because ( insert computer illiterate person here ) checking email , browsing Facebook or chatting on an IM needs a Quad Core CPU with 16 GB of Ram running Windows 7 Ultimate x64.Not sure for you , but on the planet I live on , Earth , they do n't .
Most of my family members use Windows XP on 4 + year old machines , they are all happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone still running only 32-bit Windows deserves the vulnerability.This is just one more reason why people should be upgrading to 64-bit.Yes because (insert computer illiterate person here) checking email, browsing Facebook or chatting on an IM needs a Quad Core CPU with 16 GB of Ram running Windows 7 Ultimate x64.Not sure for you, but on the planet I live on, Earth, they don't.
Most of my family members use Windows XP on 4+ year old machines, they are all happy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832472</id>
	<title>Re:64 Bit</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1264005480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bits are not a measure of power.
<br> <br>
I have a Sun Ultra 10 (300MHz UltraSPARCIIi) and a MacBook (1.85 GHz CoreDuo), guess which one is more 'powerful.'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bits are not a measure of power .
I have a Sun Ultra 10 ( 300MHz UltraSPARCIIi ) and a MacBook ( 1.85 GHz CoreDuo ) , guess which one is more 'powerful .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bits are not a measure of power.
I have a Sun Ultra 10 (300MHz UltraSPARCIIi) and a MacBook (1.85 GHz CoreDuo), guess which one is more 'powerful.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200</id>
	<title>Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue " Windows Sucks " comments in 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , 1... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835198</id>
	<title>Oy vey...yet another reason</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1264015620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to run OS/2 Warp4. Yeppers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to run OS/2 Warp4 .
Yeppers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to run OS/2 Warp4.
Yeppers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832852</id>
	<title>Old School</title>
	<author>GreenTom</author>
	<datestamp>1264006800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always wondered by PEEK and POKE still worked in QBASIC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always wondered by PEEK and POKE still worked in QBASIC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always wondered by PEEK and POKE still worked in QBASIC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835580</id>
	<title>This is how it happens.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264016880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to work for a large defense company.  I won't say who, or what project, but think Raytheon (a good sized defense contractor) and set your sights a bit higher.</p><p>Our department had a product, and of all the arguments 'round the table about this and that, one that I tried to fight was a bug that could kernel panic the system, regardless of privileges (i.e. you can be any user on the system).  Worse, this bug can be invoked on command line, locally.  Worse, this command line was a simple derivative of a legit command given in the documentation for common use while using the system.  Worse, this episode cemented and reinforced my perception of the evils of proprietary software production and allowing business rationale and management influence design decisions and implementations.</p><p>I lost, the bug was never fixed by the time I had left.  Even with architecture changes with underlying hardware, the bug propagated through hardware and software product revisions.</p><p>Allow me to backtrack for one second.  When I was starting out in software development, I got the greatest piece of advice from my then boss; who was and is a very adept engineer.  I had to develop a domain whois CGI script, I chose to do it in C.  (Follow me here, yeah perl/php/python/ada blah blah blah)  Every time I submitted a revision, he broke it.  Until one day he said, "If you are going to have an end-user give input, in any way, be prepared to parse and process anything.  You can not assume the user even knows what domain syntax is."  Basically, if you have the end-user type something on command line, into a input box, or some other text field, make no assumptions and be able to parse anything that might be managed to be inserted into that field.</p><p>My program grew thousands of lines once that sunk in.  Error handling, string parsing, input validation and sanitation, is the input even ASCII...</p><p>So with this ingrained into my psyche, which I think is an extremely valuable concept when designing interactive software, now you can appreciate my frustration when I was told that the bug in question would not be dealt with because the command that invoked it wasn't verbatim with what the documentation said.  In a nut shell, the following transpired:</p><p>Let's say I make 150 dollars an hour, and it takes me a day to investigate this bug, another day to fix it, and a few more hours to document this, and then we conduct regression testing to make sure changes don't have negative effects elsewhere in the program, that's quite a bit of money the company spends on this problem.  If the change is found out by the government testers, then we stand a chance to have to face re-certification (or at least a long delay in current certification processes) which costs even more, not to mention potentially missing our mark for shipping to market resulting in irrecoverable and high lost opportunity costs (LOC).  Now, let's say the help desk folks, who make 15 dollars an hour, simply guide the user to type the correct thing in (he spends five minutes doing this), or the end-user follows the documentation and does it himself.  The bug never surfaces, and the company doesn't have to spend the extra money or face negative consequences.</p><p>They made their decision to ignore this problem using business rationale.  I can not underestimate how pissed off I got over this issue, because our product was in use, in the field.  It was a part of the military machine, and so lives are at stake as far as I'm concerned.  Business rationale my ass, everyone there was salary and it's my opinion that the government get's shafted often by contractors as they attempt to recoup all costs by charging to a authorized project charge number for everything.  So the company doesn't really pay the 150 dollars an hour to develop a broken feature, the taxpayer does.  But this is how decisions are made when business philosophy interferes with logic, and while my bug won't likely cause an international tragedy, this exact same thing can be transposed over the events leading up to</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work for a large defense company .
I wo n't say who , or what project , but think Raytheon ( a good sized defense contractor ) and set your sights a bit higher.Our department had a product , and of all the arguments 'round the table about this and that , one that I tried to fight was a bug that could kernel panic the system , regardless of privileges ( i.e .
you can be any user on the system ) .
Worse , this bug can be invoked on command line , locally .
Worse , this command line was a simple derivative of a legit command given in the documentation for common use while using the system .
Worse , this episode cemented and reinforced my perception of the evils of proprietary software production and allowing business rationale and management influence design decisions and implementations.I lost , the bug was never fixed by the time I had left .
Even with architecture changes with underlying hardware , the bug propagated through hardware and software product revisions.Allow me to backtrack for one second .
When I was starting out in software development , I got the greatest piece of advice from my then boss ; who was and is a very adept engineer .
I had to develop a domain whois CGI script , I chose to do it in C. ( Follow me here , yeah perl/php/python/ada blah blah blah ) Every time I submitted a revision , he broke it .
Until one day he said , " If you are going to have an end-user give input , in any way , be prepared to parse and process anything .
You can not assume the user even knows what domain syntax is .
" Basically , if you have the end-user type something on command line , into a input box , or some other text field , make no assumptions and be able to parse anything that might be managed to be inserted into that field.My program grew thousands of lines once that sunk in .
Error handling , string parsing , input validation and sanitation , is the input even ASCII...So with this ingrained into my psyche , which I think is an extremely valuable concept when designing interactive software , now you can appreciate my frustration when I was told that the bug in question would not be dealt with because the command that invoked it was n't verbatim with what the documentation said .
In a nut shell , the following transpired : Let 's say I make 150 dollars an hour , and it takes me a day to investigate this bug , another day to fix it , and a few more hours to document this , and then we conduct regression testing to make sure changes do n't have negative effects elsewhere in the program , that 's quite a bit of money the company spends on this problem .
If the change is found out by the government testers , then we stand a chance to have to face re-certification ( or at least a long delay in current certification processes ) which costs even more , not to mention potentially missing our mark for shipping to market resulting in irrecoverable and high lost opportunity costs ( LOC ) .
Now , let 's say the help desk folks , who make 15 dollars an hour , simply guide the user to type the correct thing in ( he spends five minutes doing this ) , or the end-user follows the documentation and does it himself .
The bug never surfaces , and the company does n't have to spend the extra money or face negative consequences.They made their decision to ignore this problem using business rationale .
I can not underestimate how pissed off I got over this issue , because our product was in use , in the field .
It was a part of the military machine , and so lives are at stake as far as I 'm concerned .
Business rationale my ass , everyone there was salary and it 's my opinion that the government get 's shafted often by contractors as they attempt to recoup all costs by charging to a authorized project charge number for everything .
So the company does n't really pay the 150 dollars an hour to develop a broken feature , the taxpayer does .
But this is how decisions are made when business philosophy interferes with logic , and while my bug wo n't likely cause an international tragedy , this exact same thing can be transposed over the events leading up to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work for a large defense company.
I won't say who, or what project, but think Raytheon (a good sized defense contractor) and set your sights a bit higher.Our department had a product, and of all the arguments 'round the table about this and that, one that I tried to fight was a bug that could kernel panic the system, regardless of privileges (i.e.
you can be any user on the system).
Worse, this bug can be invoked on command line, locally.
Worse, this command line was a simple derivative of a legit command given in the documentation for common use while using the system.
Worse, this episode cemented and reinforced my perception of the evils of proprietary software production and allowing business rationale and management influence design decisions and implementations.I lost, the bug was never fixed by the time I had left.
Even with architecture changes with underlying hardware, the bug propagated through hardware and software product revisions.Allow me to backtrack for one second.
When I was starting out in software development, I got the greatest piece of advice from my then boss; who was and is a very adept engineer.
I had to develop a domain whois CGI script, I chose to do it in C.  (Follow me here, yeah perl/php/python/ada blah blah blah)  Every time I submitted a revision, he broke it.
Until one day he said, "If you are going to have an end-user give input, in any way, be prepared to parse and process anything.
You can not assume the user even knows what domain syntax is.
"  Basically, if you have the end-user type something on command line, into a input box, or some other text field, make no assumptions and be able to parse anything that might be managed to be inserted into that field.My program grew thousands of lines once that sunk in.
Error handling, string parsing, input validation and sanitation, is the input even ASCII...So with this ingrained into my psyche, which I think is an extremely valuable concept when designing interactive software, now you can appreciate my frustration when I was told that the bug in question would not be dealt with because the command that invoked it wasn't verbatim with what the documentation said.
In a nut shell, the following transpired:Let's say I make 150 dollars an hour, and it takes me a day to investigate this bug, another day to fix it, and a few more hours to document this, and then we conduct regression testing to make sure changes don't have negative effects elsewhere in the program, that's quite a bit of money the company spends on this problem.
If the change is found out by the government testers, then we stand a chance to have to face re-certification (or at least a long delay in current certification processes) which costs even more, not to mention potentially missing our mark for shipping to market resulting in irrecoverable and high lost opportunity costs (LOC).
Now, let's say the help desk folks, who make 15 dollars an hour, simply guide the user to type the correct thing in (he spends five minutes doing this), or the end-user follows the documentation and does it himself.
The bug never surfaces, and the company doesn't have to spend the extra money or face negative consequences.They made their decision to ignore this problem using business rationale.
I can not underestimate how pissed off I got over this issue, because our product was in use, in the field.
It was a part of the military machine, and so lives are at stake as far as I'm concerned.
Business rationale my ass, everyone there was salary and it's my opinion that the government get's shafted often by contractors as they attempt to recoup all costs by charging to a authorized project charge number for everything.
So the company doesn't really pay the 150 dollars an hour to develop a broken feature, the taxpayer does.
But this is how decisions are made when business philosophy interferes with logic, and while my bug won't likely cause an international tragedy, this exact same thing can be transposed over the events leading up to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832670</id>
	<title>WOWEXEC is still in use?</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1264006200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I was just messing around. I'm kind of suprised it took someone this long to find a vulnerability in wowexec.  I'm sure MS is not even thinking much about this, yet pretty much any program can have the possiblity of a buffer overrun or some sort of registry memory shift.<br><br>I found it funny that the Google ad displayed next to the article was for Microsoft forefront touting the security features.<br><br>http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2010/forefront.jpg</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I was just messing around .
I 'm kind of suprised it took someone this long to find a vulnerability in wowexec .
I 'm sure MS is not even thinking much about this , yet pretty much any program can have the possiblity of a buffer overrun or some sort of registry memory shift.I found it funny that the Google ad displayed next to the article was for Microsoft forefront touting the security features.http : //www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2010/forefront.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I was just messing around.
I'm kind of suprised it took someone this long to find a vulnerability in wowexec.
I'm sure MS is not even thinking much about this, yet pretty much any program can have the possiblity of a buffer overrun or some sort of registry memory shift.I found it funny that the Google ad displayed next to the article was for Microsoft forefront touting the security features.http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2010/forefront.jpg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832222</id>
	<title>I was RIGHT !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't just dump IE.</p><p>Dump <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">MicroSLOP</a> [microsoft.com]<br>completely !</p><p>Yours In Novosibirsk,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't just dump IE.Dump MicroSLOP [ microsoft.com ] completely ! Yours In Novosibirsk,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't just dump IE.Dump MicroSLOP [microsoft.com]completely !Yours In Novosibirsk,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841688</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization to the rescue!</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1264003560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how virtualization eliminates the threat.  Sure, your host OS should remain safe, but your virtual install of XP can be pwn3d by this just like if it was running on real hardware.  Better not have anything important on your virtual machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how virtualization eliminates the threat .
Sure , your host OS should remain safe , but your virtual install of XP can be pwn3d by this just like if it was running on real hardware .
Better not have anything important on your virtual machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how virtualization eliminates the threat.
Sure, your host OS should remain safe, but your virtual install of XP can be pwn3d by this just like if it was running on real hardware.
Better not have anything important on your virtual machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832632</id>
	<title>"OSs released since 1993"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot makes me sick. It's just not fair to go digging 14 years prior to the date when  Microsoft finally starting taking security seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot makes me sick .
It 's just not fair to go digging 14 years prior to the date when Microsoft finally starting taking security seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot makes me sick.
It's just not fair to go digging 14 years prior to the date when  Microsoft finally starting taking security seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835500</id>
	<title>MS-DOS 3.3 RULES!!!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264016640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm running MS-DOS right now so I'm really getting a kick out of these comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm running MS-DOS right now so I 'm really getting a kick out of these comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm running MS-DOS right now so I'm really getting a kick out of these comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832452</id>
	<title>Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows Sucks. But then you obviously knew that already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows Sucks .
But then you obviously knew that already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows Sucks.
But then you obviously knew that already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834516</id>
	<title>Re:"OSs released since 1993"</title>
	<author>bdrewery</author>
	<datestamp>1264012740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same can be said about all projects. This is why OpenBSD is so secure. It's however lacking in performance and usability quite a bit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same can be said about all projects .
This is why OpenBSD is so secure .
It 's however lacking in performance and usability quite a bit : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same can be said about all projects.
This is why OpenBSD is so secure.
It's however lacking in performance and usability quite a bit :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833038</id>
	<title>Warning: Clueless editor writes panic headline</title>
	<author>flerlerp</author>
	<datestamp>1264007460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a "Newly-found" bug. It was discoverd and reported to Microsoft on 12-Jun-2009. Not sure what's worse: An OS vendor whom doesn't patch holes quickly or a blog editor whom is clueless and uses inaccurate headlines to waste readers time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a " Newly-found " bug .
It was discoverd and reported to Microsoft on 12-Jun-2009 .
Not sure what 's worse : An OS vendor whom does n't patch holes quickly or a blog editor whom is clueless and uses inaccurate headlines to waste readers time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a "Newly-found" bug.
It was discoverd and reported to Microsoft on 12-Jun-2009.
Not sure what's worse: An OS vendor whom doesn't patch holes quickly or a blog editor whom is clueless and uses inaccurate headlines to waste readers time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833000</id>
	<title>Hang on - Isn't this a well-known bug?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to recall demo-coders bragging about using a local priv. escalation bug in the VDM to "break out" of 16-bit DOS code at least 3-4 years back.. Anyone remember?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall demo-coders bragging about using a local priv .
escalation bug in the VDM to " break out " of 16-bit DOS code at least 3-4 years back.. Anyone remember ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall demo-coders bragging about using a local priv.
escalation bug in the VDM to "break out" of 16-bit DOS code at least 3-4 years back.. Anyone remember?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30877346</id>
	<title>test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264336500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>great, I'll test this virus ASAP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>great , I 'll test this virus ASAP : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>great, I'll test this virus ASAP :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834174</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: Technical stuff follows</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1264011480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, once you do this, you won't be able to run 16-bit DOS-based software, so if you really need that you may have to wait for a patch. Or build a dedicated DOS machine, where at least you'll have no illusions of security. (Cynics would say this is true of any MS operating system, but I leave that debate to others.)</p></div><p>
Or use VirtualBox / VMWare / VirtualPC to create a VM to run your DOS programs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , once you do this , you wo n't be able to run 16-bit DOS-based software , so if you really need that you may have to wait for a patch .
Or build a dedicated DOS machine , where at least you 'll have no illusions of security .
( Cynics would say this is true of any MS operating system , but I leave that debate to others .
) Or use VirtualBox / VMWare / VirtualPC to create a VM to run your DOS programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, once you do this, you won't be able to run 16-bit DOS-based software, so if you really need that you may have to wait for a patch.
Or build a dedicated DOS machine, where at least you'll have no illusions of security.
(Cynics would say this is true of any MS operating system, but I leave that debate to others.
)
Or use VirtualBox / VMWare / VirtualPC to create a VM to run your DOS programs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841116</id>
	<title>Re:What still needs the Windows 16-bit subsystem?</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1263998760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?</p><p>Amusingly, when I first installed Windows NT 3.51, back around 1996, the 16-bit subsystem was optional, like the OS/2 subsystem, and I had it turned off.  Everything worked fine.  In NT 4, they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT, some of which still ran in 16-bit mode, and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.</p></div><p>I've used DOSBox to handle my 16-bit apps on a 64-bit machine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem ? Amusingly , when I first installed Windows NT 3.51 , back around 1996 , the 16-bit subsystem was optional , like the OS/2 subsystem , and I had it turned off .
Everything worked fine .
In NT 4 , they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT , some of which still ran in 16-bit mode , and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.I 've used DOSBox to handle my 16-bit apps on a 64-bit machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?Amusingly, when I first installed Windows NT 3.51, back around 1996, the 16-bit subsystem was optional, like the OS/2 subsystem, and I had it turned off.
Everything worked fine.
In NT 4, they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT, some of which still ran in 16-bit mode, and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.I've used DOSBox to handle my 16-bit apps on a 64-bit machine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834958</id>
	<title>Re:But does it run on Linux?</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1264014780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Switching to a new version of Linux is not nearly as big of an undertaking.</p></div><p>Sure it's not.</p><p><a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/10/28/239258.shtml" title="slashdot.org">http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/10/28/239258.shtml</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/03/karmic\_koala\_frustration/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/03/karmic\_koala\_frustration/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Switching to a new version of Linux is not nearly as big of an undertaking.Sure it 's not.http : //linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/10/28/239258.shtml [ slashdot.org ] http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/03/karmic \ _koala \ _frustration/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Switching to a new version of Linux is not nearly as big of an undertaking.Sure it's not.http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/10/28/239258.shtml [slashdot.org]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/03/karmic\_koala\_frustration/ [theregister.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833144</id>
	<title>FTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As an effective and easy to deploy workaround is available, I have concluded that it is in the best interest of users to go ahead with the publication of this document without an official patch."</p><p>So, er, why isn't there a link telling us punters how to disable the WOWEXEC and MSDOS subsystems off? Enquiring minds wish to know...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As an effective and easy to deploy workaround is available , I have concluded that it is in the best interest of users to go ahead with the publication of this document without an official patch .
" So , er , why is n't there a link telling us punters how to disable the WOWEXEC and MSDOS subsystems off ?
Enquiring minds wish to know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As an effective and easy to deploy workaround is available, I have concluded that it is in the best interest of users to go ahead with the publication of this document without an official patch.
"So, er, why isn't there a link telling us punters how to disable the WOWEXEC and MSDOS subsystems off?
Enquiring minds wish to know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833644</id>
	<title>Re:64 Bit</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1264009440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, just like having only one passenger is using 1/4 the power of your SUV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , just like having only one passenger is using 1/4 the power of your SUV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, just like having only one passenger is using 1/4 the power of your SUV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832776</id>
	<title>Brought it on yourself</title>
	<author>zookeeperme</author>
	<datestamp>1264006560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone still running only 32-bit Windows deserves the vulnerability.
This is just one more reason why people should be upgrading to 64-bit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone still running only 32-bit Windows deserves the vulnerability .
This is just one more reason why people should be upgrading to 64-bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone still running only 32-bit Windows deserves the vulnerability.
This is just one more reason why people should be upgrading to 64-bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835664</id>
	<title>Re:Not "Newly-Found"</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1264017180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, if the bad guys have the ability to place and execute a 16-bit application on your computer, you're probably already toast. This exploit is only effective if combined with another exploit, so it's really not nearly as big a deal as the Slashdot story implies.</p><p>Yes, it is a problem, and yes it wasn't noticed for a very long time. But it's not like viewing a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gif image on a website is going to pwn you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , if the bad guys have the ability to place and execute a 16-bit application on your computer , you 're probably already toast .
This exploit is only effective if combined with another exploit , so it 's really not nearly as big a deal as the Slashdot story implies.Yes , it is a problem , and yes it was n't noticed for a very long time .
But it 's not like viewing a .gif image on a website is going to pwn you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, if the bad guys have the ability to place and execute a 16-bit application on your computer, you're probably already toast.
This exploit is only effective if combined with another exploit, so it's really not nearly as big a deal as the Slashdot story implies.Yes, it is a problem, and yes it wasn't noticed for a very long time.
But it's not like viewing a .gif image on a website is going to pwn you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30836094</id>
	<title>china has forced this out in open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264018980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>haha suckers your backdoors are getting less and less every day</p><p>soon there will be only one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>haha suckers your backdoors are getting less and less every daysoon there will be only one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha suckers your backdoors are getting less and less every daysoon there will be only one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30839080</id>
	<title>Re:Brought it on yourself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263987540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell the sysadmins and helpdesk staff responsible for millions of 32-bit XP workstations around the world at companies that make all the cool stuff you buy that they deserve this vulnerability.</p><p>Judging by your UID, aren't you going to be late to social studies class?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell the sysadmins and helpdesk staff responsible for millions of 32-bit XP workstations around the world at companies that make all the cool stuff you buy that they deserve this vulnerability.Judging by your UID , are n't you going to be late to social studies class ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell the sysadmins and helpdesk staff responsible for millions of 32-bit XP workstations around the world at companies that make all the cool stuff you buy that they deserve this vulnerability.Judging by your UID, aren't you going to be late to social studies class?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832414</id>
	<title>Re:64 Bit</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1264005300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs. Seriously. What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?</p></div><p>
I only have 32-bit hardware, you insensitive clod!
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs .
Seriously. What 's the point of using half the power of your CPU ?
I only have 32-bit hardware , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason people need to abandon 32-bit OSs.
Seriously. What's the point of using half the power of your CPU?
I only have 32-bit hardware, you insensitive clod!

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833562</id>
	<title>Re:"OSs released since 1993"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope you're only kidding.
<p>
Pointing out that this bug dates back to 1993 is a very important part of the story, because it shows that even with their careful reviews of the code that things can still slip by.

</p><p>
Supposedly, Microsoft performed a review of all of the code used in Vista and Windows 7. This is not a slam against Microsoft, but an illustration that something as complex as Windows will <em>always</em> have security flaws no matter how hard you try to fix things <em>after the fact</em>. You cannot add security as a feature. It needs to be included from the initial design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you 're only kidding .
Pointing out that this bug dates back to 1993 is a very important part of the story , because it shows that even with their careful reviews of the code that things can still slip by .
Supposedly , Microsoft performed a review of all of the code used in Vista and Windows 7 .
This is not a slam against Microsoft , but an illustration that something as complex as Windows will always have security flaws no matter how hard you try to fix things after the fact .
You can not add security as a feature .
It needs to be included from the initial design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you're only kidding.
Pointing out that this bug dates back to 1993 is a very important part of the story, because it shows that even with their careful reviews of the code that things can still slip by.
Supposedly, Microsoft performed a review of all of the code used in Vista and Windows 7.
This is not a slam against Microsoft, but an illustration that something as complex as Windows will always have security flaws no matter how hard you try to fix things after the fact.
You cannot add security as a feature.
It needs to be included from the initial design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30838128</id>
	<title>Windows 9X/ME is not affected by this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263984060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This new bug does NOT affect ALL 32-bit versions of windows.</p><p>Windows 9x/ME systems are not vulnerable to this latest security issue.  Again we see how poorly designed the NT-based versions of Windows really is compared to the 9X/ME versions.  NT - The emperor has no clothes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This new bug does NOT affect ALL 32-bit versions of windows.Windows 9x/ME systems are not vulnerable to this latest security issue .
Again we see how poorly designed the NT-based versions of Windows really is compared to the 9X/ME versions .
NT - The emperor has no clothes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This new bug does NOT affect ALL 32-bit versions of windows.Windows 9x/ME systems are not vulnerable to this latest security issue.
Again we see how poorly designed the NT-based versions of Windows really is compared to the 9X/ME versions.
NT - The emperor has no clothes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832784</id>
	<title>Re:64 Bit</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1264006560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um? what? the "bits" of an OS/CPU don't have much to do with "power". Most people still have less than 4 gigs of memory. And since the "bits" are the width of the memory address bus , they don't have a physical need for more than 32bit support in their OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um ?
what ? the " bits " of an OS/CPU do n't have much to do with " power " .
Most people still have less than 4 gigs of memory .
And since the " bits " are the width of the memory address bus , they do n't have a physical need for more than 32bit support in their OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um?
what? the "bits" of an OS/CPU don't have much to do with "power".
Most people still have less than 4 gigs of memory.
And since the "bits" are the width of the memory address bus , they don't have a physical need for more than 32bit support in their OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832802</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just checked my Windows 7 installation. I don't see wowexec.exe in the process tree when running a cmd session.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just checked my Windows 7 installation .
I do n't see wowexec.exe in the process tree when running a cmd session .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just checked my Windows 7 installation.
I don't see wowexec.exe in the process tree when running a cmd session.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834416</id>
	<title>Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....</p></div><p>Why? We already know it does.  You just said so yourself.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue " Windows Sucks " comments in 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , 1....Why ?
We already know it does .
You just said so yourself .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....Why?
We already know it does.
You just said so yourself.
:D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833714</id>
	<title>I'm *still* not going to upgrade</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1264009680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My W2K and XP systems.
<p>If this was a ruse to get me to dump them, spend money, go to the hassle of upgrading the O/S <b>and</b> very likely having to replace a whole load of hardware and applications, then sorry guys. You've failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My W2K and XP systems .
If this was a ruse to get me to dump them , spend money , go to the hassle of upgrading the O/S and very likely having to replace a whole load of hardware and applications , then sorry guys .
You 've failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My W2K and XP systems.
If this was a ruse to get me to dump them, spend money, go to the hassle of upgrading the O/S and very likely having to replace a whole load of hardware and applications, then sorry guys.
You've failed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835750</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: Technical stuff follows</title>
	<author>mantis2009</author>
	<datestamp>1264017540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>does DOSbox require the MS-DOS subsystem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>does DOSbox require the MS-DOS subsystem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does DOSbox require the MS-DOS subsystem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30843292</id>
	<title>Re:What still needs the Windows 16-bit subsystem?</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1264106640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Assuming you're referring to Windows, I can tell you that 64-bit Windows XP, which was derived from Server 2003, I believe, has no 16-bit subsystem.<br>
As for major 16-bit software programs, yes, there are still some in use, probably mostly old combinations of hardware and software in specialized fields, especially old control systems. There was one comment on a story a few days back describing such installations, which are still around either because of specialized hardware interfaces or an excessive upgrade cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem ?
Assuming you 're referring to Windows , I can tell you that 64-bit Windows XP , which was derived from Server 2003 , I believe , has no 16-bit subsystem .
As for major 16-bit software programs , yes , there are still some in use , probably mostly old combinations of hardware and software in specialized fields , especially old control systems .
There was one comment on a story a few days back describing such installations , which are still around either because of specialized hardware interfaces or an excessive upgrade cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?
Assuming you're referring to Windows, I can tell you that 64-bit Windows XP, which was derived from Server 2003, I believe, has no 16-bit subsystem.
As for major 16-bit software programs, yes, there are still some in use, probably mostly old combinations of hardware and software in specialized fields, especially old control systems.
There was one comment on a story a few days back describing such installations, which are still around either because of specialized hardware interfaces or an excessive upgrade cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832774</id>
	<title>Many Eyes vs. Zero Eyes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard that coders at Microsoft don't code, and they don't go looking for bugs in old products especially. Afterall, that code is done and (to quote Blogovich) is F*ckin' golden! The only way MS code is checked is by reverse engineering by independent firms. BTW, that appears to be a violation of the EULA. How do they get <i>ever</i> away with this. F*ckin do gooder's, poking their nose into someone else's business!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard that coders at Microsoft do n't code , and they do n't go looking for bugs in old products especially .
Afterall , that code is done and ( to quote Blogovich ) is F * ckin ' golden !
The only way MS code is checked is by reverse engineering by independent firms .
BTW , that appears to be a violation of the EULA .
How do they get ever away with this .
F * ckin do gooder 's , poking their nose into someone else 's business !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard that coders at Microsoft don't code, and they don't go looking for bugs in old products especially.
Afterall, that code is done and (to quote Blogovich) is F*ckin' golden!
The only way MS code is checked is by reverse engineering by independent firms.
BTW, that appears to be a violation of the EULA.
How do they get ever away with this.
F*ckin do gooder's, poking their nose into someone else's business!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832604</id>
	<title>Re:64 Bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In one aspect of it, yes, yes it does.  x86 will only have half the number of general purpose registers available on a x86-64 processor that a 64bit operating system will be able to allow its programs to work.  now you are right that its not the number of bits that are important there, its just that the new instructions are the only thing that allows you to access the extra registers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In one aspect of it , yes , yes it does .
x86 will only have half the number of general purpose registers available on a x86-64 processor that a 64bit operating system will be able to allow its programs to work .
now you are right that its not the number of bits that are important there , its just that the new instructions are the only thing that allows you to access the extra registers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In one aspect of it, yes, yes it does.
x86 will only have half the number of general purpose registers available on a x86-64 processor that a 64bit operating system will be able to allow its programs to work.
now you are right that its not the number of bits that are important there, its just that the new instructions are the only thing that allows you to access the extra registers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832338</id>
	<title>Backward compatibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the cost of backward compatibility at the expense of everything else. That is what made Microsoft and that is what may break it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the cost of backward compatibility at the expense of everything else .
That is what made Microsoft and that is what may break it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the cost of backward compatibility at the expense of everything else.
That is what made Microsoft and that is what may break it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833412</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>snemarch</author>
	<datestamp>1264008600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>cmd.exe has nothing to do with DOS or NTVDM - it's a native 32bit <b>Windows console mode</b> application.</htmltext>
<tokenext>cmd.exe has nothing to do with DOS or NTVDM - it 's a native 32bit Windows console mode application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cmd.exe has nothing to do with DOS or NTVDM - it's a native 32bit Windows console mode application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834468</id>
	<title>Re:Backward compatibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What backwards compatibility? I have a good few hundred dollars worth of games I purchased in the latter half of the 90s that don't work on XP. Oh how I miss thee Screamer Rally!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What backwards compatibility ?
I have a good few hundred dollars worth of games I purchased in the latter half of the 90s that do n't work on XP .
Oh how I miss thee Screamer Rally !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What backwards compatibility?
I have a good few hundred dollars worth of games I purchased in the latter half of the 90s that don't work on XP.
Oh how I miss thee Screamer Rally!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832436</id>
	<title>Does it affect IE8?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264005360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of people don't care about local vulnerabilities, until they can be turned into remote or turn "secure" browsers running everything with limited privileges into something that runs with administrative rights.

<p>In particular, if that could be used to turn the "safe" IE8 into something unsafe could lead into more governments asking their citizens to stop using IE, any version of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people do n't care about local vulnerabilities , until they can be turned into remote or turn " secure " browsers running everything with limited privileges into something that runs with administrative rights .
In particular , if that could be used to turn the " safe " IE8 into something unsafe could lead into more governments asking their citizens to stop using IE , any version of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people don't care about local vulnerabilities, until they can be turned into remote or turn "secure" browsers running everything with limited privileges into something that runs with administrative rights.
In particular, if that could be used to turn the "safe" IE8 into something unsafe could lead into more governments asking their citizens to stop using IE, any version of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841328</id>
	<title>Re:"OSs released since 1993"</title>
	<author>caubert</author>
	<datestamp>1264000320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll bet a lot of MS certified admins use Pa$$w0rd for their Contoso Domains</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet a lot of MS certified admins use Pa $ $ w0rd for their Contoso Domains</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bet a lot of MS certified admins use Pa$$w0rd for their Contoso Domains</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30845468</id>
	<title>Re:"OSs released since 1993"</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1264087620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They don't even do a simple dictionary check. Same is true in the OS from what I've seen so far.<br>
<br>
How long has that been built into Linux? </i> <br>
<br>
And the old adage "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly" rings true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't even do a simple dictionary check .
Same is true in the OS from what I 've seen so far .
How long has that been built into Linux ?
And the old adage " Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it , poorly " rings true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't even do a simple dictionary check.
Same is true in the OS from what I've seen so far.
How long has that been built into Linux?
And the old adage "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly" rings true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30836622</id>
	<title>Re:What still needs the Windows 16-bit subsystem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263978180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd be amazed at how many Win32 programs came out in the last 15 years that used Win16 installers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd be amazed at how many Win32 programs came out in the last 15 years that used Win16 installers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd be amazed at how many Win32 programs came out in the last 15 years that used Win16 installers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30837772</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1263982920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>So, Microsoft could at least have fixed this in Windows 7 (according to Wikipedia: "released to manufacturing on July 22, 2009").</i>
</p><p>No, they could not have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Microsoft could at least have fixed this in Windows 7 ( according to Wikipedia : " released to manufacturing on July 22 , 2009 " ) .
No , they could not have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So, Microsoft could at least have fixed this in Windows 7 (according to Wikipedia: "released to manufacturing on July 22, 2009").
No, they could not have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833350</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: Technical stuff follows</title>
	<author>simcop2387</author>
	<datestamp>1264008420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Or build a dedicated DOS machine, where at least you'll have no illusions of security. (Cynics would say this is true of any MS operating system, but I leave that debate to others.)</p></div><p>Or instead use something like Dosbox to emulate the dos machine, would probably be significantly easier than trying to get an old dos box on a network and running.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or build a dedicated DOS machine , where at least you 'll have no illusions of security .
( Cynics would say this is true of any MS operating system , but I leave that debate to others .
) Or instead use something like Dosbox to emulate the dos machine , would probably be significantly easier than trying to get an old dos box on a network and running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Or build a dedicated DOS machine, where at least you'll have no illusions of security.
(Cynics would say this is true of any MS operating system, but I leave that debate to others.
)Or instead use something like Dosbox to emulate the dos machine, would probably be significantly easier than trying to get an old dos box on a network and running.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30838494</id>
	<title>Re:What still needs the Windows 16-bit subsystem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263985320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?"</p><p>Games! Tomb Raider, Carmageddon, Blood, and System Shock come to mind. DOSBox's dynamic recompilation isn't as fast as native execution, which is significant if you play at high resolutions. You can those at very high resolutions (Tomb Raider and Carmageddon support 3d acceleration).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem ? " Games !
Tomb Raider , Carmageddon , Blood , and System Shock come to mind .
DOSBox 's dynamic recompilation is n't as fast as native execution , which is significant if you play at high resolutions .
You can those at very high resolutions ( Tomb Raider and Carmageddon support 3d acceleration ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?"Games!
Tomb Raider, Carmageddon, Blood, and System Shock come to mind.
DOSBox's dynamic recompilation isn't as fast as native execution, which is significant if you play at high resolutions.
You can those at very high resolutions (Tomb Raider and Carmageddon support 3d acceleration).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832402</id>
	<title>Re:But does it run on Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux has it's own version of such bugs. Yes, even with the 'many eyes' looking at the source, it does happen, F/OSS is no panacea.</p><p>From <a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595\_22-332141.html" title="zdnet.com">http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595\_22-332141.html</a> [zdnet.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>A hole has been found in Linux kernel versions stretching back eight years that is 'as trivial as it can get to exploit', according to the Google employees who discovered it.</p><p>Julien Tinnes and Tavis Ormandy, the security researchers who discovered the vulnerability, have already issued a patch for the flaw. According to a blog post written by Tinnes on Thursday, the hole "affects all 2.4 and 2.6 kernels since 2001 on all architectures", and is "the public vulnerability affecting the greatest number of kernel versions".</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has it 's own version of such bugs .
Yes , even with the 'many eyes ' looking at the source , it does happen , F/OSS is no panacea.From http : //news.zdnet.com/2100-9595 \ _22-332141.html [ zdnet.com ] A hole has been found in Linux kernel versions stretching back eight years that is 'as trivial as it can get to exploit ' , according to the Google employees who discovered it.Julien Tinnes and Tavis Ormandy , the security researchers who discovered the vulnerability , have already issued a patch for the flaw .
According to a blog post written by Tinnes on Thursday , the hole " affects all 2.4 and 2.6 kernels since 2001 on all architectures " , and is " the public vulnerability affecting the greatest number of kernel versions " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has it's own version of such bugs.
Yes, even with the 'many eyes' looking at the source, it does happen, F/OSS is no panacea.From http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595\_22-332141.html [zdnet.com] A hole has been found in Linux kernel versions stretching back eight years that is 'as trivial as it can get to exploit', according to the Google employees who discovered it.Julien Tinnes and Tavis Ormandy, the security researchers who discovered the vulnerability, have already issued a patch for the flaw.
According to a blog post written by Tinnes on Thursday, the hole "affects all 2.4 and 2.6 kernels since 2001 on all architectures", and is "the public vulnerability affecting the greatest number of kernel versions".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833486</id>
	<title>Re:But does it run on Linux?</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1264008900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux has it's own version of such bugs. Yes, even with the 'many eyes' looking at the source, it does happen, F/OSS is no panacea.</p><p>From <a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595\_22-332141.html" title="zdnet.com">http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595\_22-332141.html</a> [zdnet.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>A hole has been found in Linux kernel versions stretching back eight years that is 'as trivial as it can get to exploit', according to the Google employees who discovered it.</p><p>Julien Tinnes and Tavis Ormandy, the security researchers who discovered the vulnerability, have already issued a patch for the flaw. According to a blog post written by Tinnes on Thursday, the hole "affects all 2.4 and 2.6 kernels since 2001 on all architectures", and is "the public vulnerability affecting the greatest number of kernel versions".</p></div></div><p>Eight year is a pretty 'good' record, but Windows still wins by 7 more (NT3.5 released in 1994, more or less the time of release of Linux 1.0). Also notice that then Linux bug was fixed almost contextually with its report, whereas the one this article is about has not not been fixed 6 months+ after the report was acknowledged. This is where open source wins.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has it 's own version of such bugs .
Yes , even with the 'many eyes ' looking at the source , it does happen , F/OSS is no panacea.From http : //news.zdnet.com/2100-9595 \ _22-332141.html [ zdnet.com ] A hole has been found in Linux kernel versions stretching back eight years that is 'as trivial as it can get to exploit ' , according to the Google employees who discovered it.Julien Tinnes and Tavis Ormandy , the security researchers who discovered the vulnerability , have already issued a patch for the flaw .
According to a blog post written by Tinnes on Thursday , the hole " affects all 2.4 and 2.6 kernels since 2001 on all architectures " , and is " the public vulnerability affecting the greatest number of kernel versions " .Eight year is a pretty 'good ' record , but Windows still wins by 7 more ( NT3.5 released in 1994 , more or less the time of release of Linux 1.0 ) .
Also notice that then Linux bug was fixed almost contextually with its report , whereas the one this article is about has not not been fixed 6 months + after the report was acknowledged .
This is where open source wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has it's own version of such bugs.
Yes, even with the 'many eyes' looking at the source, it does happen, F/OSS is no panacea.From http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595\_22-332141.html [zdnet.com] A hole has been found in Linux kernel versions stretching back eight years that is 'as trivial as it can get to exploit', according to the Google employees who discovered it.Julien Tinnes and Tavis Ormandy, the security researchers who discovered the vulnerability, have already issued a patch for the flaw.
According to a blog post written by Tinnes on Thursday, the hole "affects all 2.4 and 2.6 kernels since 2001 on all architectures", and is "the public vulnerability affecting the greatest number of kernel versions".Eight year is a pretty 'good' record, but Windows still wins by 7 more (NT3.5 released in 1994, more or less the time of release of Linux 1.0).
Also notice that then Linux bug was fixed almost contextually with its report, whereas the one this article is about has not not been fixed 6 months+ after the report was acknowledged.
This is where open source wins.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834224</id>
	<title>Re:But does it run on Linux?</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1264011600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed on time to patch.</p><p>But comparing switching from Win2K to 7 to a simple Linux upgrade isn't fair. We're talking about 10 year old software here - as an example Ubuntu don't support simple in-place upgrades for anything more than a couple of years old (and while I'm no expert Debian seems to have similar multi-step upgrades for older versions). If you're running an OS from 2000 (of any type) and want to upgrade to the latest, you're basically looking at a wipe &amp; reinstall regardless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed on time to patch.But comparing switching from Win2K to 7 to a simple Linux upgrade is n't fair .
We 're talking about 10 year old software here - as an example Ubuntu do n't support simple in-place upgrades for anything more than a couple of years old ( and while I 'm no expert Debian seems to have similar multi-step upgrades for older versions ) .
If you 're running an OS from 2000 ( of any type ) and want to upgrade to the latest , you 're basically looking at a wipe &amp; reinstall regardless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed on time to patch.But comparing switching from Win2K to 7 to a simple Linux upgrade isn't fair.
We're talking about 10 year old software here - as an example Ubuntu don't support simple in-place upgrades for anything more than a couple of years old (and while I'm no expert Debian seems to have similar multi-step upgrades for older versions).
If you're running an OS from 2000 (of any type) and want to upgrade to the latest, you're basically looking at a wipe &amp; reinstall regardless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854</id>
	<title>What still needs the Windows 16-bit subsystem?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1264014300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?
</p><p>
Amusingly, when I first installed Windows NT 3.51, back around 1996, the 16-bit subsystem was optional, like the OS/2 subsystem, and I had it turned off.  Everything worked fine.  In NT 4, they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT, some of which still ran in 16-bit mode, and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem ?
Amusingly , when I first installed Windows NT 3.51 , back around 1996 , the 16-bit subsystem was optional , like the OS/2 subsystem , and I had it turned off .
Everything worked fine .
In NT 4 , they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT , some of which still ran in 16-bit mode , and the 16-bit subsystem was always on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?
Amusingly, when I first installed Windows NT 3.51, back around 1996, the 16-bit subsystem was optional, like the OS/2 subsystem, and I had it turned off.
Everything worked fine.
In NT 4, they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT, some of which still ran in 16-bit mode, and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30836622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30843292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30840356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30838674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30845468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30836204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30840688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30839080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30837772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30838494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1359237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30845468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30837772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832880
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834224
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30839080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30838674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30838494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30843292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30841116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30836622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30840356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30840688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30836204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30835672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30834650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30833144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1359237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1359237.30832518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
