<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_21_0326212</id>
	<title>Microsoft To Issue Emergency IE Patch</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264078620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Microsoft <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9146578/Microsoft\_to\_issue\_emergency\_IE\_patch\_Thursday">will release its emergency patch for Internet Explorer on Thursday</a>, the company said, as it also admitted that attacks can be hidden inside rigged Office documents. 'We are planning to release the update as close to 10:00 a.m. PST as possible,' said Jerry Bryant, a program manager with the IE group. Microsoft has <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/979352.mspx">updated the security advisory</a> it originally published last week when it acknowledged a zero-day IE vulnerability had been used by hackers to break into the corporate networks of Google and other major Western companies. Google has alleged that the attacks were launched by Chinese attackers. Subsequently, security experts have <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9146239/Security\_researcher\_IDs\_China\_link\_in\_Google\_hack">offered evidence that links the attacks to China</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft will release its emergency patch for Internet Explorer on Thursday , the company said , as it also admitted that attacks can be hidden inside rigged Office documents .
'We are planning to release the update as close to 10 : 00 a.m. PST as possible, ' said Jerry Bryant , a program manager with the IE group .
Microsoft has updated the security advisory it originally published last week when it acknowledged a zero-day IE vulnerability had been used by hackers to break into the corporate networks of Google and other major Western companies .
Google has alleged that the attacks were launched by Chinese attackers .
Subsequently , security experts have offered evidence that links the attacks to China .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft will release its emergency patch for Internet Explorer on Thursday, the company said, as it also admitted that attacks can be hidden inside rigged Office documents.
'We are planning to release the update as close to 10:00 a.m. PST as possible,' said Jerry Bryant, a program manager with the IE group.
Microsoft has updated the security advisory it originally published last week when it acknowledged a zero-day IE vulnerability had been used by hackers to break into the corporate networks of Google and other major Western companies.
Google has alleged that the attacks were launched by Chinese attackers.
Subsequently, security experts have offered evidence that links the attacks to China.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847430</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264096200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NTFS doesn't even support writing new files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NTFS does n't even support writing new files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NTFS doesn't even support writing new files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844862</id>
	<title>stolen source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264083600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft source code is out there somewhere - some was stolen and out on the internet at one point. Isn't some of it also available to certain partners? It wouldn't surprise me if these hacker groups had copies of the source code and a library of exploits to use that nobody else knows about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft source code is out there somewhere - some was stolen and out on the internet at one point .
Is n't some of it also available to certain partners ?
It would n't surprise me if these hacker groups had copies of the source code and a library of exploits to use that nobody else knows about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft source code is out there somewhere - some was stolen and out on the internet at one point.
Isn't some of it also available to certain partners?
It wouldn't surprise me if these hacker groups had copies of the source code and a library of exploits to use that nobody else knows about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844856</id>
	<title>While I welcome the patch....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264083540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....I've already moved on to using Firefox 3.5.7 and Chrome 3.0.195.38 as my primary web browsers. The reason is simple: IE 8.0 is dog slow at times in web page rendering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....I 've already moved on to using Firefox 3.5.7 and Chrome 3.0.195.38 as my primary web browsers .
The reason is simple : IE 8.0 is dog slow at times in web page rendering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....I've already moved on to using Firefox 3.5.7 and Chrome 3.0.195.38 as my primary web browsers.
The reason is simple: IE 8.0 is dog slow at times in web page rendering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845742</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264088820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So my father-in-law who's still on Windows ME is safe then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So my father-in-law who 's still on Windows ME is safe then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So my father-in-law who's still on Windows ME is safe then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845988</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264089900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah.  Whatever.  I'm waiting for someone to clone NTKernel.  Just think, Windows XP - Open Source version.  Hey - they did it with NTFS, just a little more work, and we can have the kernel.</p><p>Seriously - XP might be a decent system, if it were released OPEN SOURCE, so that people are motivated to contribute vulnerabilities and fixes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Whatever. I 'm waiting for someone to clone NTKernel .
Just think , Windows XP - Open Source version .
Hey - they did it with NTFS , just a little more work , and we can have the kernel.Seriously - XP might be a decent system , if it were released OPEN SOURCE , so that people are motivated to contribute vulnerabilities and fixes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Whatever.  I'm waiting for someone to clone NTKernel.
Just think, Windows XP - Open Source version.
Hey - they did it with NTFS, just a little more work, and we can have the kernel.Seriously - XP might be a decent system, if it were released OPEN SOURCE, so that people are motivated to contribute vulnerabilities and fixes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846766</id>
	<title>treason?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264093440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><p>Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&amp;q=NASDAQ:MSFT" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">msft</a> [google.com]</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et\_tu,\_Brute\%3F" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Et tu, Brute?</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] : Oran 's Dictionary of the Law ( 1983 ) defines treason as : " ... [ a ] ...citizen 's actions to help a foreign government overthrow , make war against , or seriously injure the [ parent nation ] .
" In many nations , it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government , even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.msft [ google.com ] Et tu , Brute ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].
" In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.msft [google.com]Et tu, Brute?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790</id>
	<title>Yikes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264083000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Affected Software</b> <br>
Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4<br>
Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Service Pack 3<br>
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2<br>
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2<br>
Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2<br>
Windows Server 2003 with SP2 for Itanium-based Systems<br>
Windows Vista, Windows Vista Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista Service Pack 2<br>
Windows Vista x64 Edition, Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 2<br>
Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems and Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2<br>
Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems Service pack 2<br>
Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems Service Pack 2<br>
Windows 7</p> </div><p>
"Windows 7: with multi-core optimisations and improved app performance, be compromised faster than ever before!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Affected Software Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Service Pack 3 Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2 Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2 Windows Server 2003 with SP2 for Itanium-based Systems Windows Vista , Windows Vista Service Pack 1 , and Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Windows Vista x64 Edition , Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 1 , and Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 2 Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems and Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2 Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems Service pack 2 Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems Service Pack 2 Windows 7 " Windows 7 : with multi-core optimisations and improved app performance , be compromised faster than ever before !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Affected Software 
Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4
Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Service Pack 3
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2
Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2
Windows Server 2003 with SP2 for Itanium-based Systems
Windows Vista, Windows Vista Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista Service Pack 2
Windows Vista x64 Edition, Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 2
Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems and Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2
Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems Service pack 2
Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems Service Pack 2
Windows 7 
"Windows 7: with multi-core optimisations and improved app performance, be compromised faster than ever before!
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848236</id>
	<title>Dear MS, please use this as the excuse to kill IE6</title>
	<author>Safety Cap</author>
	<datestamp>1264099260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only they would stop issuing patches and updates for IE6 and earlier, then we could get on with dropping all support, everywhere, for this POS browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only they would stop issuing patches and updates for IE6 and earlier , then we could get on with dropping all support , everywhere , for this POS browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only they would stop issuing patches and updates for IE6 and earlier, then we could get on with dropping all support, everywhere, for this POS browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848588</id>
	<title>Re:stolen source</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264100820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft has given the Chinese government preferential access to the Windows Source code</p></div><p>It's not "preferential". Any government can get Windows source code for security analysis under the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/gsp.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Government Security Program</a> [microsoft.com] - it's just that Chinese were the first to jump on that bandwagon (it should be noted that there were similar programs in place before GSP, so China was only the first in GSP, not the first to get access to Windows source code in general).</p><p>Also, universities can (and do) <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/windowsacademic/default.mspx" title="microsoft.com">get access to the source code</a> [microsoft.com] for study and research purposes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has given the Chinese government preferential access to the Windows Source codeIt 's not " preferential " .
Any government can get Windows source code for security analysis under the Government Security Program [ microsoft.com ] - it 's just that Chinese were the first to jump on that bandwagon ( it should be noted that there were similar programs in place before GSP , so China was only the first in GSP , not the first to get access to Windows source code in general ) .Also , universities can ( and do ) get access to the source code [ microsoft.com ] for study and research purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has given the Chinese government preferential access to the Windows Source codeIt's not "preferential".
Any government can get Windows source code for security analysis under the Government Security Program [microsoft.com] - it's just that Chinese were the first to jump on that bandwagon (it should be noted that there were similar programs in place before GSP, so China was only the first in GSP, not the first to get access to Windows source code in general).Also, universities can (and do) get access to the source code [microsoft.com] for study and research purposes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844906</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes</title>
	<author>Shrike82</author>
	<datestamp>1264083780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have Windows 7 Home Premium x64 Edition. Did you forget to copy that part of the list or have my early-adoption habits finally been rewarded? If so then at last all the years of no driver support, software incompatibility and system instability were worth it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Windows 7 Home Premium x64 Edition .
Did you forget to copy that part of the list or have my early-adoption habits finally been rewarded ?
If so then at last all the years of no driver support , software incompatibility and system instability were worth it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Windows 7 Home Premium x64 Edition.
Did you forget to copy that part of the list or have my early-adoption habits finally been rewarded?
If so then at last all the years of no driver support, software incompatibility and system instability were worth it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846626</id>
	<title>Re:Attack from the source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I agree with your reasoning, I don't agree that MS could ever release it's source code to the wild. It would ruin their OS division. I'm actually surprised they would agree to release their code to China. I would have though there would be restrictions to that given the millions (billions?) of people it potentially exposes to vulnerabilities that only the Chinese and Microsoft could discover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I agree with your reasoning , I do n't agree that MS could ever release it 's source code to the wild .
It would ruin their OS division .
I 'm actually surprised they would agree to release their code to China .
I would have though there would be restrictions to that given the millions ( billions ?
) of people it potentially exposes to vulnerabilities that only the Chinese and Microsoft could discover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I agree with your reasoning, I don't agree that MS could ever release it's source code to the wild.
It would ruin their OS division.
I'm actually surprised they would agree to release their code to China.
I would have though there would be restrictions to that given the millions (billions?
) of people it potentially exposes to vulnerabilities that only the Chinese and Microsoft could discover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844860</id>
	<title>Shows difference between IT and politics</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1264083600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It only shows that warnings are never heeded when coming from the insiders and professionals. It takes global companies and several countries to ring the bell for MS to step up and patch exploits faster...<br>
It's not really news that lots of exploits could (and probably were) abused for espionage (both corporate and international). But only now that 'teh evil chinese' are happily hacking along some action is taken.<br>
This is exactly the kind of problem that could be avoided by listening to security experts.<br> <br>
Thanks M$ for giving a crap about the security of users, companies and countries... You're a few years too late stepping up the game, but please keep it up, we might as well have security as an afterthought instead of no security at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It only shows that warnings are never heeded when coming from the insiders and professionals .
It takes global companies and several countries to ring the bell for MS to step up and patch exploits faster.. . It 's not really news that lots of exploits could ( and probably were ) abused for espionage ( both corporate and international ) .
But only now that 'teh evil chinese ' are happily hacking along some action is taken .
This is exactly the kind of problem that could be avoided by listening to security experts .
Thanks M $ for giving a crap about the security of users , companies and countries... You 're a few years too late stepping up the game , but please keep it up , we might as well have security as an afterthought instead of no security at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only shows that warnings are never heeded when coming from the insiders and professionals.
It takes global companies and several countries to ring the bell for MS to step up and patch exploits faster...
It's not really news that lots of exploits could (and probably were) abused for espionage (both corporate and international).
But only now that 'teh evil chinese' are happily hacking along some action is taken.
This is exactly the kind of problem that could be avoided by listening to security experts.
Thanks M$ for giving a crap about the security of users, companies and countries... You're a few years too late stepping up the game, but please keep it up, we might as well have security as an afterthought instead of no security at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844854</id>
	<title>Another blow to Open Office.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264083540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Microsoft will release its emergency patch for Internet Explorer on Thursday, the company said as it also admitted that attacks can be hidden inside rigged Office documents. '</p></div><p>

Now to be 100\% compatible with Microsoft Office, the OpenOffice developers have to work day and night to get this bug/hole/exploit to work exactly the same way in OpenOffice too. I have heard OpenOffice people bitch and moan, "Microsoft keeps changing file formats and APIs deliberately forcing us to do so much of work catching up", now I sympathize. I understand how difficult it would be to code up a gaping security hole that works exactly like it does in the De-Facto Standard.</p><p>

That brings up another issue. The ISO committee now has to redo the standards to allow this exploit into the OOXML-is-standard-too document. But fortunately the 6000 page standard definition was already in the form of a doc file with this specially crafted backdoor in place. So Microsoft was able to step in, do the modification needed, and set the flags to erase all evidence of the edit and exit. The committee chairman Soldou Tothem expressed his gratitude to Microsoft and complimented their foresight in incorporating such back doors into the standards document.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft will release its emergency patch for Internet Explorer on Thursday , the company said as it also admitted that attacks can be hidden inside rigged Office documents .
' Now to be 100 \ % compatible with Microsoft Office , the OpenOffice developers have to work day and night to get this bug/hole/exploit to work exactly the same way in OpenOffice too .
I have heard OpenOffice people bitch and moan , " Microsoft keeps changing file formats and APIs deliberately forcing us to do so much of work catching up " , now I sympathize .
I understand how difficult it would be to code up a gaping security hole that works exactly like it does in the De-Facto Standard .
That brings up another issue .
The ISO committee now has to redo the standards to allow this exploit into the OOXML-is-standard-too document .
But fortunately the 6000 page standard definition was already in the form of a doc file with this specially crafted backdoor in place .
So Microsoft was able to step in , do the modification needed , and set the flags to erase all evidence of the edit and exit .
The committee chairman Soldou Tothem expressed his gratitude to Microsoft and complimented their foresight in incorporating such back doors into the standards document .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft will release its emergency patch for Internet Explorer on Thursday, the company said as it also admitted that attacks can be hidden inside rigged Office documents.
'

Now to be 100\% compatible with Microsoft Office, the OpenOffice developers have to work day and night to get this bug/hole/exploit to work exactly the same way in OpenOffice too.
I have heard OpenOffice people bitch and moan, "Microsoft keeps changing file formats and APIs deliberately forcing us to do so much of work catching up", now I sympathize.
I understand how difficult it would be to code up a gaping security hole that works exactly like it does in the De-Facto Standard.
That brings up another issue.
The ISO committee now has to redo the standards to allow this exploit into the OOXML-is-standard-too document.
But fortunately the 6000 page standard definition was already in the form of a doc file with this specially crafted backdoor in place.
So Microsoft was able to step in, do the modification needed, and set the flags to erase all evidence of the edit and exit.
The committee chairman Soldou Tothem expressed his gratitude to Microsoft and complimented their foresight in incorporating such back doors into the standards document.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847206</id>
	<title>Please Tell Me</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1264095300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just me or does the following make sense in a "no, I'm not <i>that</i> paranoid" paranoid sort of way?<p><div class="quote"><p>Google has alleged that the attacks were launched by Chinese attackers. Subsequently, security experts have offered evidence that links the attacks to China."</p></div><p>
Google:  Hey!  We think the Chinese did this!<br>
Security Experts (so-called):  Hey!  You're right!  In fact, we now have evidence that the Chinese did this heinous crime!<br>
Google:  Wait!  We think that someone in Poland helped out!<br>
SE(S-C):  Hey!  By golly, you're right again!  In fact, we have even <i>more</i> evidence that the Chinese were helped by those crafty Poles!<br>
Google:  Wait!  We think that the same dudes who tapped into the Predator video-feed <i>also</i> had a devious hand in this!<br>
SE(S-C):  Hey!  You're really batting a thousand!  In fact, we just now received a cached download of the streaming video of Osama bin Laden's laptop showing him punching the buttons!<br>
Google:  Yay!  Now we can go to the peoples of the world with all this wonderful proof that we don't do evil; evil is done to us!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or does the following make sense in a " no , I 'm not that paranoid " paranoid sort of way ? Google has alleged that the attacks were launched by Chinese attackers .
Subsequently , security experts have offered evidence that links the attacks to China .
" Google : Hey !
We think the Chinese did this !
Security Experts ( so-called ) : Hey !
You 're right !
In fact , we now have evidence that the Chinese did this heinous crime !
Google : Wait !
We think that someone in Poland helped out !
SE ( S-C ) : Hey !
By golly , you 're right again !
In fact , we have even more evidence that the Chinese were helped by those crafty Poles !
Google : Wait !
We think that the same dudes who tapped into the Predator video-feed also had a devious hand in this !
SE ( S-C ) : Hey !
You 're really batting a thousand !
In fact , we just now received a cached download of the streaming video of Osama bin Laden 's laptop showing him punching the buttons !
Google : Yay !
Now we can go to the peoples of the world with all this wonderful proof that we do n't do evil ; evil is done to us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or does the following make sense in a "no, I'm not that paranoid" paranoid sort of way?Google has alleged that the attacks were launched by Chinese attackers.
Subsequently, security experts have offered evidence that links the attacks to China.
"
Google:  Hey!
We think the Chinese did this!
Security Experts (so-called):  Hey!
You're right!
In fact, we now have evidence that the Chinese did this heinous crime!
Google:  Wait!
We think that someone in Poland helped out!
SE(S-C):  Hey!
By golly, you're right again!
In fact, we have even more evidence that the Chinese were helped by those crafty Poles!
Google:  Wait!
We think that the same dudes who tapped into the Predator video-feed also had a devious hand in this!
SE(S-C):  Hey!
You're really batting a thousand!
In fact, we just now received a cached download of the streaming video of Osama bin Laden's laptop showing him punching the buttons!
Google:  Yay!
Now we can go to the peoples of the world with all this wonderful proof that we don't do evil; evil is done to us!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30849466</id>
	<title>Re:Attack from the source</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1264104780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As I recall, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016\_3-5083458.html" title="cnet.com">the Chinese government has access to the Windows source code</a> [cnet.com].  Google's been claiming that the Chinese government launched the attacks, and security experts have backed them up.  The obvious conclusion is that having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows.</p><p>While some might see this as an argument against Open Source security products, I see exactly the opposite.  The closed source made it possible for <b>the only party with the source</b> to gain an advantage.  In products where the source is available to everyone, there is no advantage to any party.  Therefore the holes are found and sealed, instead of left to fester, like this one was.</p></div><p>While that may have made it <b>easier</b> for them, it does not explain the numerous hackers and script kiddies who have managed to compromise IE7/8 and Vista/Win7 security, even on default configurations; as they did <b>not</b> have access to the source code.

</p><p>The rest, though I agree with ("holes are found and sealed, etc") is also contingent on other factors when Microsoft is involved.
<br>(1) Holes are only "sealed" when enough media attention is drawn to them - otherwise it's when Microsoft gets around to it, if ever.
<br>(2) The holes are generally poorly patched, and not truly sealed (see the half dozen MAJOR (and tons of minor)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET fixes to deal with the RCE exploits, where after each one, a very similar exploit was found because the hole was never properly patched, or there were dozens of others that were skipped).

</p><p>No, I am not trying to bash Microsoft... there are enough others here to do that. I am simply pointing out history as it happened. Every statement above has historical backing to it (#2 I even provided one of many examples).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I recall , the Chinese government has access to the Windows source code [ cnet.com ] .
Google 's been claiming that the Chinese government launched the attacks , and security experts have backed them up .
The obvious conclusion is that having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows.While some might see this as an argument against Open Source security products , I see exactly the opposite .
The closed source made it possible for the only party with the source to gain an advantage .
In products where the source is available to everyone , there is no advantage to any party .
Therefore the holes are found and sealed , instead of left to fester , like this one was.While that may have made it easier for them , it does not explain the numerous hackers and script kiddies who have managed to compromise IE7/8 and Vista/Win7 security , even on default configurations ; as they did not have access to the source code .
The rest , though I agree with ( " holes are found and sealed , etc " ) is also contingent on other factors when Microsoft is involved .
( 1 ) Holes are only " sealed " when enough media attention is drawn to them - otherwise it 's when Microsoft gets around to it , if ever .
( 2 ) The holes are generally poorly patched , and not truly sealed ( see the half dozen MAJOR ( and tons of minor ) .NET fixes to deal with the RCE exploits , where after each one , a very similar exploit was found because the hole was never properly patched , or there were dozens of others that were skipped ) .
No , I am not trying to bash Microsoft... there are enough others here to do that .
I am simply pointing out history as it happened .
Every statement above has historical backing to it ( # 2 I even provided one of many examples ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I recall, the Chinese government has access to the Windows source code [cnet.com].
Google's been claiming that the Chinese government launched the attacks, and security experts have backed them up.
The obvious conclusion is that having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows.While some might see this as an argument against Open Source security products, I see exactly the opposite.
The closed source made it possible for the only party with the source to gain an advantage.
In products where the source is available to everyone, there is no advantage to any party.
Therefore the holes are found and sealed, instead of left to fester, like this one was.While that may have made it easier for them, it does not explain the numerous hackers and script kiddies who have managed to compromise IE7/8 and Vista/Win7 security, even on default configurations; as they did not have access to the source code.
The rest, though I agree with ("holes are found and sealed, etc") is also contingent on other factors when Microsoft is involved.
(1) Holes are only "sealed" when enough media attention is drawn to them - otherwise it's when Microsoft gets around to it, if ever.
(2) The holes are generally poorly patched, and not truly sealed (see the half dozen MAJOR (and tons of minor) .NET fixes to deal with the RCE exploits, where after each one, a very similar exploit was found because the hole was never properly patched, or there were dozens of others that were skipped).
No, I am not trying to bash Microsoft... there are enough others here to do that.
I am simply pointing out history as it happened.
Every statement above has historical backing to it (#2 I even provided one of many examples).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844746</id>
	<title>hahahaha running scared!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264082460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845146</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264085760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that if one doesn't open unknown documents from untrusted sources, one is probably pretty well protected from this.  Though if you leave the default settings in place - to allow documents to be opened inside of your web browser- then you'd be vulnerable via iframes and malicious advert content.  (Actually<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  is that still the default setting in IE?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that if one does n't open unknown documents from untrusted sources , one is probably pretty well protected from this .
Though if you leave the default settings in place - to allow documents to be opened inside of your web browser- then you 'd be vulnerable via iframes and malicious advert content .
( Actually ... is that still the default setting in IE ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that if one doesn't open unknown documents from untrusted sources, one is probably pretty well protected from this.
Though if you leave the default settings in place - to allow documents to be opened inside of your web browser- then you'd be vulnerable via iframes and malicious advert content.
(Actually ...  is that still the default setting in IE?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847474</id>
	<title>THAT'S WHAT WORKS AGAINST "OPEN SORES"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264096320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Per my subject-line above, &amp; this quote from yourself next below - well... I'm sure you've all heard of considered what I stated above before, but... here goes:</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"Microsoft source code is out there somewhere - some was stolen and out on the internet at one point. Isn't some of it also available to certain partners? It wouldn't surprise me if these hacker groups had copies of the source code and a library of exploits to use that nobody else knows about."</b> - by mikem170 (698970) on Thursday January 21, @08:20AM (#30844862)</p></div><p>You're probably correct on that note, &amp; THAT is the truly dangerous part... the things that we do NOT know about (yet).</p><p>(Still, it does have its merits, in those that do "hacking/cracking", in "black hats" as they're commonly referred to as (as well as those who are considered "white hats" also) - BOTH parties I refer to do a good thing, in that they BOTH point out what needs "shoring up")...</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Still, per your statement, &amp; what I noted in my subject-line? Think this doesn't "work against" what's commonly called "Open Source" (pardon my 'pun'/joke above in my subject-line, because OPEN SOURCE per your very ideas? It really COULD be referred to as "OPEN SORES", &amp; for the EXACT SAME REASONS YOU NOTED really!</p><p>(However, of course? Open Source also helps for making patches faster &amp; from MORE FOLKS since more folks have access to the actual sourcecode of any Open Source app too - yes, it's a real "double-edged sword" type situation, for BOTH closed source &amp; open source))... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Per my subject-line above , &amp; this quote from yourself next below - well... I 'm sure you 've all heard of considered what I stated above before , but... here goes : " Microsoft source code is out there somewhere - some was stolen and out on the internet at one point .
Is n't some of it also available to certain partners ?
It would n't surprise me if these hacker groups had copies of the source code and a library of exploits to use that nobody else knows about .
" - by mikem170 ( 698970 ) on Thursday January 21 , @ 08 : 20AM ( # 30844862 ) You 're probably correct on that note , &amp; THAT is the truly dangerous part... the things that we do NOT know about ( yet ) .
( Still , it does have its merits , in those that do " hacking/cracking " , in " black hats " as they 're commonly referred to as ( as well as those who are considered " white hats " also ) - BOTH parties I refer to do a good thing , in that they BOTH point out what needs " shoring up " ) ...APKP.S. = &gt; Still , per your statement , &amp; what I noted in my subject-line ?
Think this does n't " work against " what 's commonly called " Open Source " ( pardon my 'pun'/joke above in my subject-line , because OPEN SOURCE per your very ideas ?
It really COULD be referred to as " OPEN SORES " , &amp; for the EXACT SAME REASONS YOU NOTED really !
( However , of course ?
Open Source also helps for making patches faster &amp; from MORE FOLKS since more folks have access to the actual sourcecode of any Open Source app too - yes , it 's a real " double-edged sword " type situation , for BOTH closed source &amp; open source ) ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per my subject-line above, &amp; this quote from yourself next below - well... I'm sure you've all heard of considered what I stated above before, but... here goes:"Microsoft source code is out there somewhere - some was stolen and out on the internet at one point.
Isn't some of it also available to certain partners?
It wouldn't surprise me if these hacker groups had copies of the source code and a library of exploits to use that nobody else knows about.
" - by mikem170 (698970) on Thursday January 21, @08:20AM (#30844862)You're probably correct on that note, &amp; THAT is the truly dangerous part... the things that we do NOT know about (yet).
(Still, it does have its merits, in those that do "hacking/cracking", in "black hats" as they're commonly referred to as (as well as those who are considered "white hats" also) - BOTH parties I refer to do a good thing, in that they BOTH point out what needs "shoring up")...APKP.S.=&gt; Still, per your statement, &amp; what I noted in my subject-line?
Think this doesn't "work against" what's commonly called "Open Source" (pardon my 'pun'/joke above in my subject-line, because OPEN SOURCE per your very ideas?
It really COULD be referred to as "OPEN SORES", &amp; for the EXACT SAME REASONS YOU NOTED really!
(However, of course?
Open Source also helps for making patches faster &amp; from MORE FOLKS since more folks have access to the actual sourcecode of any Open Source app too - yes, it's a real "double-edged sword" type situation, for BOTH closed source &amp; open source))... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845370</id>
	<title>Affected software list</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264087020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my understanding, every version of IE is vulnerable to the exploit, however not every install of IE is vulnerable. There are claims that "IE8 with DEP on" is vulnerable, but it says nothing about the combination of DEP and UAC.<br><br>http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9145958/Researchers\_up\_ante\_create\_exploits\_for\_IE7\_IE8?taxonomyId=17&amp;pageNumber=2<br><br>Essentially, if you're using back versions of the operating system and don't keep updated, you're vulnerable. What makes this exploit different from a lot of others is that it has such a large attack surface. However, from what I'm gathering, the default Windows 7 install with IE8 should be safe from any attacks. As soon as you start disabling technologies (UAC, DEP)--you will run into problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my understanding , every version of IE is vulnerable to the exploit , however not every install of IE is vulnerable .
There are claims that " IE8 with DEP on " is vulnerable , but it says nothing about the combination of DEP and UAC.http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9145958/Researchers \ _up \ _ante \ _create \ _exploits \ _for \ _IE7 \ _IE8 ? taxonomyId = 17&amp;pageNumber = 2Essentially , if you 're using back versions of the operating system and do n't keep updated , you 're vulnerable .
What makes this exploit different from a lot of others is that it has such a large attack surface .
However , from what I 'm gathering , the default Windows 7 install with IE8 should be safe from any attacks .
As soon as you start disabling technologies ( UAC , DEP ) --you will run into problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my understanding, every version of IE is vulnerable to the exploit, however not every install of IE is vulnerable.
There are claims that "IE8 with DEP on" is vulnerable, but it says nothing about the combination of DEP and UAC.http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9145958/Researchers\_up\_ante\_create\_exploits\_for\_IE7\_IE8?taxonomyId=17&amp;pageNumber=2Essentially, if you're using back versions of the operating system and don't keep updated, you're vulnerable.
What makes this exploit different from a lot of others is that it has such a large attack surface.
However, from what I'm gathering, the default Windows 7 install with IE8 should be safe from any attacks.
As soon as you start disabling technologies (UAC, DEP)--you will run into problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846032</id>
	<title>Re:Another blow to Open Office.</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1264090080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now to be 100\% compatible with Microsoft Office, the OpenOffice developers have to work day and night to get this bug/hole/exploit to work exactly the same way in OpenOffice too. I have heard OpenOffice people bitch and moan, "Microsoft keeps changing file formats and APIs deliberately forcing us to do so much of work catching up", now I sympathize. I understand how difficult it would be to code up a gaping security hole that works exactly like it does in the De-Facto Standard.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, the OpenOffice developers will work day and night to make this bug/hole/exploit to work similarly to, but not quite the same as, Microsoft Office.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now to be 100 \ % compatible with Microsoft Office , the OpenOffice developers have to work day and night to get this bug/hole/exploit to work exactly the same way in OpenOffice too .
I have heard OpenOffice people bitch and moan , " Microsoft keeps changing file formats and APIs deliberately forcing us to do so much of work catching up " , now I sympathize .
I understand how difficult it would be to code up a gaping security hole that works exactly like it does in the De-Facto Standard.No , the OpenOffice developers will work day and night to make this bug/hole/exploit to work similarly to , but not quite the same as , Microsoft Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now to be 100\% compatible with Microsoft Office, the OpenOffice developers have to work day and night to get this bug/hole/exploit to work exactly the same way in OpenOffice too.
I have heard OpenOffice people bitch and moan, "Microsoft keeps changing file formats and APIs deliberately forcing us to do so much of work catching up", now I sympathize.
I understand how difficult it would be to code up a gaping security hole that works exactly like it does in the De-Facto Standard.No, the OpenOffice developers will work day and night to make this bug/hole/exploit to work similarly to, but not quite the same as, Microsoft Office.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844814</id>
	<title>Attack targeted perforce repositories?</title>
	<author>Distan</author>
	<datestamp>1264083240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reat that the attack targeted Perforce repositories.  Haven't heard if any other source control systems were targeted.</p><p>Pretty clever way to gather intellectual property; I'd never considered it before, but for many companies if you can download their repository data then you have their crown jewels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reat that the attack targeted Perforce repositories .
Have n't heard if any other source control systems were targeted.Pretty clever way to gather intellectual property ; I 'd never considered it before , but for many companies if you can download their repository data then you have their crown jewels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reat that the attack targeted Perforce repositories.
Haven't heard if any other source control systems were targeted.Pretty clever way to gather intellectual property; I'd never considered it before, but for many companies if you can download their repository data then you have their crown jewels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578</id>
	<title>Attack from the source</title>
	<author>Judebert</author>
	<datestamp>1264088100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I recall, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016\_3-5083458.html" title="cnet.com">the Chinese government has access to the Windows source code</a> [cnet.com].  Google's been claiming that the Chinese government launched the attacks, and security experts have backed them up.  The obvious conclusion is that having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows.</p><p>While some might see this as an argument against Open Source security products, I see exactly the opposite.  The closed source made it possible for <b>the only party with the source</b> to gain an advantage.  In products where the source is available to everyone, there is no advantage to any party.  Therefore the holes are found and sealed, instead of left to fester, like this one was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I recall , the Chinese government has access to the Windows source code [ cnet.com ] .
Google 's been claiming that the Chinese government launched the attacks , and security experts have backed them up .
The obvious conclusion is that having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows.While some might see this as an argument against Open Source security products , I see exactly the opposite .
The closed source made it possible for the only party with the source to gain an advantage .
In products where the source is available to everyone , there is no advantage to any party .
Therefore the holes are found and sealed , instead of left to fester , like this one was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I recall, the Chinese government has access to the Windows source code [cnet.com].
Google's been claiming that the Chinese government launched the attacks, and security experts have backed them up.
The obvious conclusion is that having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows.While some might see this as an argument against Open Source security products, I see exactly the opposite.
The closed source made it possible for the only party with the source to gain an advantage.
In products where the source is available to everyone, there is no advantage to any party.
Therefore the holes are found and sealed, instead of left to fester, like this one was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844978</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes</title>
	<author>toleraen</author>
	<datestamp>1264084440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, you found a patch that affects most of Microsoft's Operating Systems. <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms09-oct.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Rare indeed.</a> [microsoft.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you found a patch that affects most of Microsoft 's Operating Systems .
Rare indeed .
[ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you found a patch that affects most of Microsoft's Operating Systems.
Rare indeed.
[microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847772</id>
	<title>"Great minds think alike"... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264097400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1518574&amp;cid=30847474" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1518574&amp;cid=30847474</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>We think much the same, per what I stated in response here in that URL above, &amp; per what you wrote which I will now quote:</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"While some might see this as an argument against Open Source security products, I see exactly the opposite. The closed source made it possible for the only party with the source to gain an advantage. In products where the source is available to everyone, there is no advantage to any party. Therefore the holes are found and sealed, instead of left to fester, like this one was."</b> - by Judebert (147131) on Thursday January 21, @09:35AM (#30845578) Homepage</p> </div><p>Per my subject-line above, as well as the URL I just posted on this very same subject? We think greatly alike... (not that I consider myself a "great mind", as I only used that old adage to prove my point here... which is, in utter agreement with that which I quoted from you!)</p><p>Now, of course, @ least YOU have the "presence of mind" to realize THAT that which I stated also can "hold true" which is the opposing viewpoint you note - however,  I do utterly agree that "Open Sores" (lol, just a joke, I don't want Mr. Stallman "coming down on me" here, OR, any of the "Pro Open-Source crew" doing so either, etc. / et al) does lend itself to MORE FOLKS BEING ABLE TO SPOT &amp; REPORT ON, IF NOT PATCH THEMSELVES (well, provided they have a knowledge of programming that is)...</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt;  Also per this statement from you:</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"As I recall, the Chinese government has access to the Windows source code. Google's been claiming that the Chinese government launched the attacks, and security experts have backed them up. The obvious conclusion is that having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows."</b> - by Judebert (147131) on Thursday January 21, @09:35AM (#30845578) Homepage</p> </div><p>Well... also in that URL above where I replied much along the SAME LINES/TRAIN OF THOUGHT as you have, Judebert? I feel that black-hat "hacker/cracker" types (alongside white hatters too mind you) do the world a "favor", albeit in the case of blackhats, unintentionally (mostly), &amp; I noted it in that URL above: THEY POINT OUT WHAT NEEDS "SHORING UP" &amp; IMPROVING!</p><p>("Big Fan" here of this old adage too -&gt; "When life gives you LEMONS? MAKE LEMONADE!" - in other words? In every "bad", there's a GOOD too)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1518574&amp;cid = 30847474 [ slashdot.org ] We think much the same , per what I stated in response here in that URL above , &amp; per what you wrote which I will now quote : " While some might see this as an argument against Open Source security products , I see exactly the opposite .
The closed source made it possible for the only party with the source to gain an advantage .
In products where the source is available to everyone , there is no advantage to any party .
Therefore the holes are found and sealed , instead of left to fester , like this one was .
" - by Judebert ( 147131 ) on Thursday January 21 , @ 09 : 35AM ( # 30845578 ) Homepage Per my subject-line above , as well as the URL I just posted on this very same subject ?
We think greatly alike... ( not that I consider myself a " great mind " , as I only used that old adage to prove my point here... which is , in utter agreement with that which I quoted from you !
) Now , of course , @ least YOU have the " presence of mind " to realize THAT that which I stated also can " hold true " which is the opposing viewpoint you note - however , I do utterly agree that " Open Sores " ( lol , just a joke , I do n't want Mr. Stallman " coming down on me " here , OR , any of the " Pro Open-Source crew " doing so either , etc .
/ et al ) does lend itself to MORE FOLKS BEING ABLE TO SPOT &amp; REPORT ON , IF NOT PATCH THEMSELVES ( well , provided they have a knowledge of programming that is ) ...APKP.S. = &gt; Also per this statement from you : " As I recall , the Chinese government has access to the Windows source code .
Google 's been claiming that the Chinese government launched the attacks , and security experts have backed them up .
The obvious conclusion is that having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows .
" - by Judebert ( 147131 ) on Thursday January 21 , @ 09 : 35AM ( # 30845578 ) Homepage Well... also in that URL above where I replied much along the SAME LINES/TRAIN OF THOUGHT as you have , Judebert ?
I feel that black-hat " hacker/cracker " types ( alongside white hatters too mind you ) do the world a " favor " , albeit in the case of blackhats , unintentionally ( mostly ) , &amp; I noted it in that URL above : THEY POINT OUT WHAT NEEDS " SHORING UP " &amp; IMPROVING !
( " Big Fan " here of this old adage too - &gt; " When life gives you LEMONS ?
MAKE LEMONADE !
" - in other words ?
In every " bad " , there 's a GOOD too ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1518574&amp;cid=30847474 [slashdot.org]We think much the same, per what I stated in response here in that URL above, &amp; per what you wrote which I will now quote:"While some might see this as an argument against Open Source security products, I see exactly the opposite.
The closed source made it possible for the only party with the source to gain an advantage.
In products where the source is available to everyone, there is no advantage to any party.
Therefore the holes are found and sealed, instead of left to fester, like this one was.
" - by Judebert (147131) on Thursday January 21, @09:35AM (#30845578) Homepage Per my subject-line above, as well as the URL I just posted on this very same subject?
We think greatly alike... (not that I consider myself a "great mind", as I only used that old adage to prove my point here... which is, in utter agreement with that which I quoted from you!
)Now, of course, @ least YOU have the "presence of mind" to realize THAT that which I stated also can "hold true" which is the opposing viewpoint you note - however,  I do utterly agree that "Open Sores" (lol, just a joke, I don't want Mr. Stallman "coming down on me" here, OR, any of the "Pro Open-Source crew" doing so either, etc.
/ et al) does lend itself to MORE FOLKS BEING ABLE TO SPOT &amp; REPORT ON, IF NOT PATCH THEMSELVES (well, provided they have a knowledge of programming that is)...APKP.S.=&gt;  Also per this statement from you:"As I recall, the Chinese government has access to the Windows source code.
Google's been claiming that the Chinese government launched the attacks, and security experts have backed them up.
The obvious conclusion is that having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows.
" - by Judebert (147131) on Thursday January 21, @09:35AM (#30845578) Homepage Well... also in that URL above where I replied much along the SAME LINES/TRAIN OF THOUGHT as you have, Judebert?
I feel that black-hat "hacker/cracker" types (alongside white hatters too mind you) do the world a "favor", albeit in the case of blackhats, unintentionally (mostly), &amp; I noted it in that URL above: THEY POINT OUT WHAT NEEDS "SHORING UP" &amp; IMPROVING!
("Big Fan" here of this old adage too -&gt; "When life gives you LEMONS?
MAKE LEMONADE!
" - in other words?
In every "bad", there's a GOOD too)... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844768</id>
	<title>Q: what do you call 250,000 dead haitians?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264082700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A: A good start!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A : A good start !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A: A good start!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845308</id>
	<title>Re:Another blow to Open Office.</title>
	<author>Valdukas</author>
	<datestamp>1264086780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they have actually included an undocumented OOXML attribute <tt>crashLikeWord97</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they have actually included an undocumented OOXML attribute crashLikeWord97</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they have actually included an undocumented OOXML attribute crashLikeWord97</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844820</id>
	<title>Define Emergency</title>
	<author>sipatha</author>
	<datestamp>1264083300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it still an emergency since its been some time now since the vulnerability was made public?

The best patch is to use a different browser</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it still an emergency since its been some time now since the vulnerability was made public ?
The best patch is to use a different browser</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it still an emergency since its been some time now since the vulnerability was made public?
The best patch is to use a different browser</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845934</id>
	<title>Re:Another blow to Open Office.</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264089720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You almost made me cry...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You almost made me cry.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You almost made me cry...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30849380</id>
	<title>Re:Affected software list</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1264104480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, from what I'm gathering, the default Windows 7 install with IE8 should be safe from any attacks. As soon as you start disabling technologies (UAC, DEP)--you will run into problems.</p></div><p>Incorrect. As it is, UAC does not seem to stop various "visit a site"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET/Active X exploits that Microsoft claims they have finally (6th time) fixed. Nor does DEP prevent them. Nor does the combination of the two...

</p><p>..."oddly" enough, UAC does often prevent some updates unless a user confirms them... unless they are automatic, and use the same exploit method used by some of the malware out there.

</p><p>Thus, IE7 and IE8 on Vista or Win7, even on the default configurations, is still vulnerable. Something even Microsoft finally admitted to in their most recent revision to their earlier document.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , from what I 'm gathering , the default Windows 7 install with IE8 should be safe from any attacks .
As soon as you start disabling technologies ( UAC , DEP ) --you will run into problems.Incorrect .
As it is , UAC does not seem to stop various " visit a site " .NET/Active X exploits that Microsoft claims they have finally ( 6th time ) fixed .
Nor does DEP prevent them .
Nor does the combination of the two.. . ... " oddly " enough , UAC does often prevent some updates unless a user confirms them... unless they are automatic , and use the same exploit method used by some of the malware out there .
Thus , IE7 and IE8 on Vista or Win7 , even on the default configurations , is still vulnerable .
Something even Microsoft finally admitted to in their most recent revision to their earlier document .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, from what I'm gathering, the default Windows 7 install with IE8 should be safe from any attacks.
As soon as you start disabling technologies (UAC, DEP)--you will run into problems.Incorrect.
As it is, UAC does not seem to stop various "visit a site" .NET/Active X exploits that Microsoft claims they have finally (6th time) fixed.
Nor does DEP prevent them.
Nor does the combination of the two...

..."oddly" enough, UAC does often prevent some updates unless a user confirms them... unless they are automatic, and use the same exploit method used by some of the malware out there.
Thus, IE7 and IE8 on Vista or Win7, even on the default configurations, is still vulnerable.
Something even Microsoft finally admitted to in their most recent revision to their earlier document.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846492</id>
	<title>Re:Attack from the source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on earth does Google have to use Windows? For their reputation, they should've been out of it a decade ago!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth does Google have to use Windows ?
For their reputation , they should 've been out of it a decade ago !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth does Google have to use Windows?
For their reputation, they should've been out of it a decade ago!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845536</id>
	<title>Re:stolen source</title>
	<author>rtfa-troll</author>
	<datestamp>1264087920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft has given the Chinese government <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1007-990526.html" title="cnet.com">preferential access to the Windows Source code</a> [cnet.com].  They even <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016\_3-5083458.html" title="cnet.com">set up a lab of security researchers to look for vulnerabilities</a> [cnet.com] in the code.  I don't think leaks onto the internet have anything to do with it.  It's kind of like all the possible disadvantages of OSS with none of the advantages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has given the Chinese government preferential access to the Windows Source code [ cnet.com ] .
They even set up a lab of security researchers to look for vulnerabilities [ cnet.com ] in the code .
I do n't think leaks onto the internet have anything to do with it .
It 's kind of like all the possible disadvantages of OSS with none of the advantages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has given the Chinese government preferential access to the Windows Source code [cnet.com].
They even set up a lab of security researchers to look for vulnerabilities [cnet.com] in the code.
I don't think leaks onto the internet have anything to do with it.
It's kind of like all the possible disadvantages of OSS with none of the advantages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844796</id>
	<title>Brrrrrrr! Sorry. Wrong Name.</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1264083000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should have been called a band-aid (over a gaping hole in the chest cavity.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should have been called a band-aid ( over a gaping hole in the chest cavity .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should have been called a band-aid (over a gaping hole in the chest cavity.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845176</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264085940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like a basic architectural problem. Or else it would nor persist as long, trough so many changes.</p><p>No need to bash MS on top of the usual, because Win7 still has it. Think of a basic core library that just works since back then and does not need changing. You overlooked something, and someone found a way that you did no think about.<br>That&rsquo;s normal, an can happen to anyone.</p><p>It&rsquo;s usually not the bugs that are the problem. Everything has bugs.<br>It&rsquo;s the way MS handles fixing them. With massive denial, attacking others for mentioning it, and then a very very late, half-assed patch that needs another patch to patch the patch.<br>That&rsquo;s the real problem.</p><p>Would MS just have a normal bugzilla, and in the normal case quickly fix the important bugs, I would have no problem with that. Mozilla does it just like that. And even Mozilla has a couple of long-standing bugs. I guess every big software has them. Because every software has a base architecture that you can only re-build every so many years in the complete rewrite. So bugs that don require that architecture to change can&rsquo;t simply be fixed.<br>Oh, that reminds me, that for IE, that rewrite is long overdue. That&rsquo;s the reason there are so many big bugs in there. But I don&rsquo;t see MS doing a complete rewrite, unless they are <em>forced</em> to completely throw away the old Trident engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like a basic architectural problem .
Or else it would nor persist as long , trough so many changes.No need to bash MS on top of the usual , because Win7 still has it .
Think of a basic core library that just works since back then and does not need changing .
You overlooked something , and someone found a way that you did no think about.That    s normal , an can happen to anyone.It    s usually not the bugs that are the problem .
Everything has bugs.It    s the way MS handles fixing them .
With massive denial , attacking others for mentioning it , and then a very very late , half-assed patch that needs another patch to patch the patch.That    s the real problem.Would MS just have a normal bugzilla , and in the normal case quickly fix the important bugs , I would have no problem with that .
Mozilla does it just like that .
And even Mozilla has a couple of long-standing bugs .
I guess every big software has them .
Because every software has a base architecture that you can only re-build every so many years in the complete rewrite .
So bugs that don require that architecture to change can    t simply be fixed.Oh , that reminds me , that for IE , that rewrite is long overdue .
That    s the reason there are so many big bugs in there .
But I don    t see MS doing a complete rewrite , unless they are forced to completely throw away the old Trident engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like a basic architectural problem.
Or else it would nor persist as long, trough so many changes.No need to bash MS on top of the usual, because Win7 still has it.
Think of a basic core library that just works since back then and does not need changing.
You overlooked something, and someone found a way that you did no think about.That’s normal, an can happen to anyone.It’s usually not the bugs that are the problem.
Everything has bugs.It’s the way MS handles fixing them.
With massive denial, attacking others for mentioning it, and then a very very late, half-assed patch that needs another patch to patch the patch.That’s the real problem.Would MS just have a normal bugzilla, and in the normal case quickly fix the important bugs, I would have no problem with that.
Mozilla does it just like that.
And even Mozilla has a couple of long-standing bugs.
I guess every big software has them.
Because every software has a base architecture that you can only re-build every so many years in the complete rewrite.
So bugs that don require that architecture to change can’t simply be fixed.Oh, that reminds me, that for IE, that rewrite is long overdue.
That’s the reason there are so many big bugs in there.
But I don’t see MS doing a complete rewrite, unless they are forced to completely throw away the old Trident engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848600</id>
	<title>Re:Attack from the source</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264100880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In products where the source is available to everyone, there is no advantage to any party.</p></div><p>Not quite; in that case, the advantage is to parties which can afford to allocate more resources to perform a security analysis of said code. Even if you personally were handed the complete source code of Windows, I doubt you'd be able to uncover and fix security flaws faster than Chinese government hackers can.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In products where the source is available to everyone , there is no advantage to any party.Not quite ; in that case , the advantage is to parties which can afford to allocate more resources to perform a security analysis of said code .
Even if you personally were handed the complete source code of Windows , I doubt you 'd be able to uncover and fix security flaws faster than Chinese government hackers can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In products where the source is available to everyone, there is no advantage to any party.Not quite; in that case, the advantage is to parties which can afford to allocate more resources to perform a security analysis of said code.
Even if you personally were handed the complete source code of Windows, I doubt you'd be able to uncover and fix security flaws faster than Chinese government hackers can.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847662</id>
	<title>Re:While I welcome the patch....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264096920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet you're already out of date: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/personal.html?from=getfirefox</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet you 're already out of date : http : //www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/personal.html ? from = getfirefox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet you're already out of date: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/personal.html?from=getfirefox</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848302</id>
	<title>Google has BACKED DOWN in China</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1264099620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not quite off-topic. I have attempted to post the reports that <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1154292/Google-Re-enabled-Chinese-Censorship?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">Google has backed down in China and <em>re-enabled search result filtering in Google.cn</em> </a> [slashdot.org] in the last two days, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors keep refusing to put it in the front page. Right, how can we criticize our new found American hero defending the precious "freedom"? How can a hero backing down to the evil China? Hero can't make fundamental principle error, or you are not allowed to know when it does. Can someone find a way to post this report?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not quite off-topic .
I have attempted to post the reports that Google has backed down in China and re-enabled search result filtering in Google.cn [ slashdot.org ] in the last two days , but / .
editors keep refusing to put it in the front page .
Right , how can we criticize our new found American hero defending the precious " freedom " ?
How can a hero backing down to the evil China ?
Hero ca n't make fundamental principle error , or you are not allowed to know when it does .
Can someone find a way to post this report ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not quite off-topic.
I have attempted to post the reports that Google has backed down in China and re-enabled search result filtering in Google.cn  [slashdot.org] in the last two days, but /.
editors keep refusing to put it in the front page.
Right, how can we criticize our new found American hero defending the precious "freedom"?
How can a hero backing down to the evil China?
Hero can't make fundamental principle error, or you are not allowed to know when it does.
Can someone find a way to post this report?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846584</id>
	<title>Re:Attack from the source</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1264092480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows" is not an obvious conclusion. Debugging tools are good enough to walk right through algorithms, and stuff like fuzz testing means that you can throw huge amounts of bad data at various functionality and see what it chokes on (rather than doing careful analysis of the source code).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows " is not an obvious conclusion .
Debugging tools are good enough to walk right through algorithms , and stuff like fuzz testing means that you can throw huge amounts of bad data at various functionality and see what it chokes on ( rather than doing careful analysis of the source code ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows" is not an obvious conclusion.
Debugging tools are good enough to walk right through algorithms, and stuff like fuzz testing means that you can throw huge amounts of bad data at various functionality and see what it chokes on (rather than doing careful analysis of the source code).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845010</id>
	<title>Another reference</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1264084740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More information about this story can be found <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/19/1946248/Microsoft-To-Ship-Emergency-IE-Patch" title="slashdot.org">here</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More information about this story can be found here [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More information about this story can be found here [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845764</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes</title>
	<author>3vi1</author>
	<datestamp>1264088940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities."  </i> - Bill Gates, 1998 memo to Office product group.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company .
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities .
" - Bill Gates , 1998 memo to Office product group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
"   - Bill Gates, 1998 memo to Office product group.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846476</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes</title>
	<author>Orbijx</author>
	<datestamp>1264092000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm.<br>Isn't that the goal of <a href="http://reactos.org/" title="reactos.org">ReactOS</a> [reactos.org]?</p><p>I may be wrong, but it's a shot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm.Is n't that the goal of ReactOS [ reactos.org ] ? I may be wrong , but it 's a shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm.Isn't that the goal of ReactOS [reactos.org]?I may be wrong, but it's a shot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848534</id>
	<title>Re:While I welcome the patch....</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264100520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE8 isn't really slow at <em>rendering</em>. It's mostly that its JS implementation sucks, both raw execution speed (it's an interpreter, not even bytecode AFAIK), and DOM manipulation. Hence it works fine on static sites, but anything heavily Web-2.0ish, like Slashdot, kills it real fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE8 is n't really slow at rendering .
It 's mostly that its JS implementation sucks , both raw execution speed ( it 's an interpreter , not even bytecode AFAIK ) , and DOM manipulation .
Hence it works fine on static sites , but anything heavily Web-2.0ish , like Slashdot , kills it real fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE8 isn't really slow at rendering.
It's mostly that its JS implementation sucks, both raw execution speed (it's an interpreter, not even bytecode AFAIK), and DOM manipulation.
Hence it works fine on static sites, but anything heavily Web-2.0ish, like Slashdot, kills it real fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844892</id>
	<title>In Communist China ...</title>
	<author>ACK!!</author>
	<datestamp>1264083720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the software compromises you!

Yes, someone else can come up with something more clever but man this is such an opportunity for a new meme.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the software compromises you !
Yes , someone else can come up with something more clever but man this is such an opportunity for a new meme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the software compromises you!
Yes, someone else can come up with something more clever but man this is such an opportunity for a new meme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30849380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30849466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_0326212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30849466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30849380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30845988
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30847430
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30846476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30848302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_0326212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_0326212.30844796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
