<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_25_1458231</id>
	<title>Australian ISPs To Disconnect Botnet "Zombies"</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264433760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jibjibjib writes <i>"Some of Australia's largest ISPs are preparing an industry code of conduct to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/call-to-cut-net-link-on-virus-hit-computers/story-e6frg6n6-1225823060022">identify and respond to users with botnet-infected computers</a>. The Internet Industry Association, made up of over 200 ISPs and technology companies, is preparing the code in response to an ultimatum from the federal government.
ISPs will try to contact the user, slow down their connection, and ultimately terminate the connection if the user refuses to fix the problem. It is hoped that this will reduce the growth of botnets in Australia, which had the world's third-highest rate of new 'zombies' (behind the US and China)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jibjibjib writes " Some of Australia 's largest ISPs are preparing an industry code of conduct to identify and respond to users with botnet-infected computers .
The Internet Industry Association , made up of over 200 ISPs and technology companies , is preparing the code in response to an ultimatum from the federal government .
ISPs will try to contact the user , slow down their connection , and ultimately terminate the connection if the user refuses to fix the problem .
It is hoped that this will reduce the growth of botnets in Australia , which had the world 's third-highest rate of new 'zombies ' ( behind the US and China ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jibjibjib writes "Some of Australia's largest ISPs are preparing an industry code of conduct to identify and respond to users with botnet-infected computers.
The Internet Industry Association, made up of over 200 ISPs and technology companies, is preparing the code in response to an ultimatum from the federal government.
ISPs will try to contact the user, slow down their connection, and ultimately terminate the connection if the user refuses to fix the problem.
It is hoped that this will reduce the growth of botnets in Australia, which had the world's third-highest rate of new 'zombies' (behind the US and China).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30895952</id>
	<title>Colour me skeptical... Disguised "Three Strikes" ?</title>
	<author>gwait</author>
	<datestamp>1264414860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why bother implementing a troublesome and unpopular "Three Strikes" law to stop torrents when all you have to do is claim their machine is part of a botnet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother implementing a troublesome and unpopular " Three Strikes " law to stop torrents when all you have to do is claim their machine is part of a botnet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother implementing a troublesome and unpopular "Three Strikes" law to stop torrents when all you have to do is claim their machine is part of a botnet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893672</id>
	<title>There is an inherent responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a responsibility by any user not to interfere with others. Being infected with a botnet is certainly one for this category. Not responding to warnings of infection is negating this and is abusive of others using the net. Why should users that interfere with others be tolerated?</p><p>To simply say that a significant number of the people that have botnets don't know how to remove them, even after warnings is far to simplistic an excuse. The same can be said about their ability to pay to have them removed. Format C:/ is the lowest cost. Having a friend help remove personal data is the next and last 1 hour labour by the local shop to retrieve the personal data is not unreasonable. However this same group most likely don't have any significant personal data they can retrieve even for normal use as they have no idea where it is once they it save. They have never bothered or are incapable to learn the concept of directories or the concept of organizing their work. So they really don't have in a practical sense any personal data to recover. Am I heartless? No actually, just pragmatic.</p><p>Why do those botnet infected people have any right to interfere with others wanting to share this net resource? Why is there a large group defending them seem to think there is no personal responsibility involved when going on the net? There is no right to interfere with me or is there? Be it simply by being a pest or anything else. I don't care what you do as long as it does not impact me within reason. We all share the net. We all generally have contracts with our ISP's  with a code of conduct. I see no reason why those that don't head warnings to fix their systems shouldn't lose the privilege of access from that equipment.</p><p>We qualify people for many things in our society. Most of those things revolve around protecting the rights of others. Just as a license is a privilege and requires a test, there are rules for bicycles, being an obnoxious drunk in public, etc. There is no right to thieve, assault, stalk, or be a public nuisance.  A person with a botnet infection is part of interfering with others and they have no right to do that. But there certainly is a responsibility not to do that.</p><p>But who is responsible to prevent it? Is it mine? Do I have to incur expense and time trying to keep these people from bothering and interfering with me? The practical aspects with today's technology says that at best it's only a partial solution anyway. So why limit only one approach? There is no rule that requires only one solution to deal with this menace that costs everyone time and money. Money reflected  in everything from my time to the rates I pay for access to the net, on up the chain to the carriers.</p><p>If I had my way there would be a fixed IP for all home connections. It is practical technically and is not a security problem to have one. Dynamic IP's offer negligible protection if any at all. A fixed IP certainly offers a measure ability for me to solve part of the problem. I see no reason why a system based on complaint or by discovery should not be used to cut these repeat offenders from using their own hardware to connect. They mostly have other options to get on the net if they fail to maintain their own equipment when notified. Where do any of you get off saying they aren't responsible for their own stupidity. So ok, If they have no obligation to others, then using that logic. There is no obligation to give them access or at least to that access from their infected equipment. They may get access from the library computer or other methods. They may still get on, just not using their trainwreck of a computer from home. All is then fair enough.</p><p>So what of people that don't know how or can afford to remove the infection. Cry me a river. That's not an excuse to abuse others. They have no friends? Can't afford one hour of tech time? I maybe my brothers keeper but it doesn't mean you can't give then a slap upside the head when they act like a moron. The know it is wrong. So get off the net until they find a solut</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a responsibility by any user not to interfere with others .
Being infected with a botnet is certainly one for this category .
Not responding to warnings of infection is negating this and is abusive of others using the net .
Why should users that interfere with others be tolerated ? To simply say that a significant number of the people that have botnets do n't know how to remove them , even after warnings is far to simplistic an excuse .
The same can be said about their ability to pay to have them removed .
Format C : / is the lowest cost .
Having a friend help remove personal data is the next and last 1 hour labour by the local shop to retrieve the personal data is not unreasonable .
However this same group most likely do n't have any significant personal data they can retrieve even for normal use as they have no idea where it is once they it save .
They have never bothered or are incapable to learn the concept of directories or the concept of organizing their work .
So they really do n't have in a practical sense any personal data to recover .
Am I heartless ?
No actually , just pragmatic.Why do those botnet infected people have any right to interfere with others wanting to share this net resource ?
Why is there a large group defending them seem to think there is no personal responsibility involved when going on the net ?
There is no right to interfere with me or is there ?
Be it simply by being a pest or anything else .
I do n't care what you do as long as it does not impact me within reason .
We all share the net .
We all generally have contracts with our ISP 's with a code of conduct .
I see no reason why those that do n't head warnings to fix their systems should n't lose the privilege of access from that equipment.We qualify people for many things in our society .
Most of those things revolve around protecting the rights of others .
Just as a license is a privilege and requires a test , there are rules for bicycles , being an obnoxious drunk in public , etc .
There is no right to thieve , assault , stalk , or be a public nuisance .
A person with a botnet infection is part of interfering with others and they have no right to do that .
But there certainly is a responsibility not to do that.But who is responsible to prevent it ?
Is it mine ?
Do I have to incur expense and time trying to keep these people from bothering and interfering with me ?
The practical aspects with today 's technology says that at best it 's only a partial solution anyway .
So why limit only one approach ?
There is no rule that requires only one solution to deal with this menace that costs everyone time and money .
Money reflected in everything from my time to the rates I pay for access to the net , on up the chain to the carriers.If I had my way there would be a fixed IP for all home connections .
It is practical technically and is not a security problem to have one .
Dynamic IP 's offer negligible protection if any at all .
A fixed IP certainly offers a measure ability for me to solve part of the problem .
I see no reason why a system based on complaint or by discovery should not be used to cut these repeat offenders from using their own hardware to connect .
They mostly have other options to get on the net if they fail to maintain their own equipment when notified .
Where do any of you get off saying they are n't responsible for their own stupidity .
So ok , If they have no obligation to others , then using that logic .
There is no obligation to give them access or at least to that access from their infected equipment .
They may get access from the library computer or other methods .
They may still get on , just not using their trainwreck of a computer from home .
All is then fair enough.So what of people that do n't know how or can afford to remove the infection .
Cry me a river .
That 's not an excuse to abuse others .
They have no friends ?
Ca n't afford one hour of tech time ?
I maybe my brothers keeper but it does n't mean you ca n't give then a slap upside the head when they act like a moron .
The know it is wrong .
So get off the net until they find a solut</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a responsibility by any user not to interfere with others.
Being infected with a botnet is certainly one for this category.
Not responding to warnings of infection is negating this and is abusive of others using the net.
Why should users that interfere with others be tolerated?To simply say that a significant number of the people that have botnets don't know how to remove them, even after warnings is far to simplistic an excuse.
The same can be said about their ability to pay to have them removed.
Format C:/ is the lowest cost.
Having a friend help remove personal data is the next and last 1 hour labour by the local shop to retrieve the personal data is not unreasonable.
However this same group most likely don't have any significant personal data they can retrieve even for normal use as they have no idea where it is once they it save.
They have never bothered or are incapable to learn the concept of directories or the concept of organizing their work.
So they really don't have in a practical sense any personal data to recover.
Am I heartless?
No actually, just pragmatic.Why do those botnet infected people have any right to interfere with others wanting to share this net resource?
Why is there a large group defending them seem to think there is no personal responsibility involved when going on the net?
There is no right to interfere with me or is there?
Be it simply by being a pest or anything else.
I don't care what you do as long as it does not impact me within reason.
We all share the net.
We all generally have contracts with our ISP's  with a code of conduct.
I see no reason why those that don't head warnings to fix their systems shouldn't lose the privilege of access from that equipment.We qualify people for many things in our society.
Most of those things revolve around protecting the rights of others.
Just as a license is a privilege and requires a test, there are rules for bicycles, being an obnoxious drunk in public, etc.
There is no right to thieve, assault, stalk, or be a public nuisance.
A person with a botnet infection is part of interfering with others and they have no right to do that.
But there certainly is a responsibility not to do that.But who is responsible to prevent it?
Is it mine?
Do I have to incur expense and time trying to keep these people from bothering and interfering with me?
The practical aspects with today's technology says that at best it's only a partial solution anyway.
So why limit only one approach?
There is no rule that requires only one solution to deal with this menace that costs everyone time and money.
Money reflected  in everything from my time to the rates I pay for access to the net, on up the chain to the carriers.If I had my way there would be a fixed IP for all home connections.
It is practical technically and is not a security problem to have one.
Dynamic IP's offer negligible protection if any at all.
A fixed IP certainly offers a measure ability for me to solve part of the problem.
I see no reason why a system based on complaint or by discovery should not be used to cut these repeat offenders from using their own hardware to connect.
They mostly have other options to get on the net if they fail to maintain their own equipment when notified.
Where do any of you get off saying they aren't responsible for their own stupidity.
So ok, If they have no obligation to others, then using that logic.
There is no obligation to give them access or at least to that access from their infected equipment.
They may get access from the library computer or other methods.
They may still get on, just not using their trainwreck of a computer from home.
All is then fair enough.So what of people that don't know how or can afford to remove the infection.
Cry me a river.
That's not an excuse to abuse others.
They have no friends?
Can't afford one hour of tech time?
I maybe my brothers keeper but it doesn't mean you can't give then a slap upside the head when they act like a moron.
The know it is wrong.
So get off the net until they find a solut</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891218</id>
	<title>What does this mean?</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1264439280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The code states ISPs should cut off internet access only in the "most extreme of cases", when a customer had refused to install anti-virus software, or where the amount of spam being sent from the customer's account was clogging up the network.</p></div></blockquote><p>Does that mean they will cut off users who simply don't have an AV program, even if they're not infected?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The code states ISPs should cut off internet access only in the " most extreme of cases " , when a customer had refused to install anti-virus software , or where the amount of spam being sent from the customer 's account was clogging up the network.Does that mean they will cut off users who simply do n't have an AV program , even if they 're not infected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The code states ISPs should cut off internet access only in the "most extreme of cases", when a customer had refused to install anti-virus software, or where the amount of spam being sent from the customer's account was clogging up the network.Does that mean they will cut off users who simply don't have an AV program, even if they're not infected?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891036</id>
	<title>Open invite to hackers: Come steal our stuff!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264438680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This SOUNDS like a good idea in theory, but what will end up happening is that Hackers will start to send fake notices to Australian users and will easily be able to trick people into giving personal information (ie account numbers, CC numbers, ect.) by claiming to be from the government and/or ISP.  They need to create some sort of control around this, but I only see it causing problems....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This SOUNDS like a good idea in theory , but what will end up happening is that Hackers will start to send fake notices to Australian users and will easily be able to trick people into giving personal information ( ie account numbers , CC numbers , ect .
) by claiming to be from the government and/or ISP .
They need to create some sort of control around this , but I only see it causing problems... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This SOUNDS like a good idea in theory, but what will end up happening is that Hackers will start to send fake notices to Australian users and will easily be able to trick people into giving personal information (ie account numbers, CC numbers, ect.
) by claiming to be from the government and/or ISP.
They need to create some sort of control around this, but I only see it causing problems....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891254</id>
	<title>What if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264439400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if I want to keep the botnet feature on my computer and use the Internet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I want to keep the botnet feature on my computer and use the Internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I want to keep the botnet feature on my computer and use the Internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891488</id>
	<title>Re:Free botnet removal support?</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1264440000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they can't afford to keep their machine clean, they don't go on the Internet. Sucks to be them. They don't get to pass on the cost of their mistakes to everyone else, like they do if you just keep their connection alive.</p><p>Yes I work for an ISP. Yes that's in our terms and conditions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they ca n't afford to keep their machine clean , they do n't go on the Internet .
Sucks to be them .
They do n't get to pass on the cost of their mistakes to everyone else , like they do if you just keep their connection alive.Yes I work for an ISP .
Yes that 's in our terms and conditions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can't afford to keep their machine clean, they don't go on the Internet.
Sucks to be them.
They don't get to pass on the cost of their mistakes to everyone else, like they do if you just keep their connection alive.Yes I work for an ISP.
Yes that's in our terms and conditions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894742</id>
	<title>Corporation &amp; profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264410000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with this if:</p><p>1) the governments and ISP who request this manufacture anti-virus (free of charge) and update signatures daily. Otherwise is forcing users to give money to AV companies.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1.1) their criteria is based on *detected by all free antivirus* botnets...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1.2) Government provides AV's for all major O.S.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1.2.1) Government sponsored AVs (free for users) have minimal memory footprint [user's shouldn't be forced to have tradeoff of performance]</p><p>2) Bandwidth usage is *not* the only criteria</p><p>3) Costumers have the right to prove that their high bandwidth usage is not derived from malware and thus void the request and subsequent disconnection.</p><p>4) Action is being taken against C&amp;C and not single machines</p><p>5) Oblige any vendor who has "scheduled patches" and  delay them, ignoring "advisories" to pay for each day malware is spreading. (it has associated costs)</p><p>6) All machines from IP ranges belonging to goverment that are part of a botnet or anytime associated with them are blocked<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ( yup, they'd love to have their entire address block isolated from the world because someone connected a infected laptop to the network)</p><p>7) A grant is given to research , detection<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... of C&amp;C's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>(and a lot more probably)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with this if : 1 ) the governments and ISP who request this manufacture anti-virus ( free of charge ) and update signatures daily .
Otherwise is forcing users to give money to AV companies .
        1.1 ) their criteria is based on * detected by all free antivirus * botnets.. .         1.2 ) Government provides AV 's for all major O.S .
              1.2.1 ) Government sponsored AVs ( free for users ) have minimal memory footprint [ user 's should n't be forced to have tradeoff of performance ] 2 ) Bandwidth usage is * not * the only criteria3 ) Costumers have the right to prove that their high bandwidth usage is not derived from malware and thus void the request and subsequent disconnection.4 ) Action is being taken against C&amp;C and not single machines5 ) Oblige any vendor who has " scheduled patches " and delay them , ignoring " advisories " to pay for each day malware is spreading .
( it has associated costs ) 6 ) All machines from IP ranges belonging to goverment that are part of a botnet or anytime associated with them are blocked         ( yup , they 'd love to have their entire address block isolated from the world because someone connected a infected laptop to the network ) 7 ) A grant is given to research , detection ... of C&amp;C 's .... ( and a lot more probably )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with this if:1) the governments and ISP who request this manufacture anti-virus (free of charge) and update signatures daily.
Otherwise is forcing users to give money to AV companies.
        1.1) their criteria is based on *detected by all free antivirus* botnets...
        1.2) Government provides AV's for all major O.S.
              1.2.1) Government sponsored AVs (free for users) have minimal memory footprint [user's shouldn't be forced to have tradeoff of performance]2) Bandwidth usage is *not* the only criteria3) Costumers have the right to prove that their high bandwidth usage is not derived from malware and thus void the request and subsequent disconnection.4) Action is being taken against C&amp;C and not single machines5) Oblige any vendor who has "scheduled patches" and  delay them, ignoring "advisories" to pay for each day malware is spreading.
(it has associated costs)6) All machines from IP ranges belonging to goverment that are part of a botnet or anytime associated with them are blocked
        ( yup, they'd love to have their entire address block isolated from the world because someone connected a infected laptop to the network)7) A grant is given to research , detection ... of C&amp;C's ....(and a lot more probably)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896992</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264418700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've worked at 2 AU ISP's. We disconnect people forcibly already if spam or other virus traffic is detected.<br>This agreement only formalises what is already in practice.</p><p>Slow news day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked at 2 AU ISP 's .
We disconnect people forcibly already if spam or other virus traffic is detected.This agreement only formalises what is already in practice.Slow news day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked at 2 AU ISP's.
We disconnect people forcibly already if spam or other virus traffic is detected.This agreement only formalises what is already in practice.Slow news day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30912910</id>
	<title>Re:why not directly disconnect every Windows machi</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264519500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not quite an accurate solution, but statistically close enough...</p></div></blockquote><p>

Because then botnet herders will just write botnets for Mac's. This does not address the cause of the problem, it only treats a symptom.<br> <br>

In addition to this, an internet comprised mainly of Mac users will create toxic levels of smug, they are bad enough at ~4\% of internet users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite an accurate solution , but statistically close enough.. . Because then botnet herders will just write botnets for Mac 's .
This does not address the cause of the problem , it only treats a symptom .
In addition to this , an internet comprised mainly of Mac users will create toxic levels of smug , they are bad enough at ~ 4 \ % of internet users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite an accurate solution, but statistically close enough...

Because then botnet herders will just write botnets for Mac's.
This does not address the cause of the problem, it only treats a symptom.
In addition to this, an internet comprised mainly of Mac users will create toxic levels of smug, they are bad enough at ~4\% of internet users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896572</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>dasmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264416960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nearly all Australian ISPs block port 25 access to anything other than their mail server. You can turn it off of course, but the majority of people don't complain about it, or use 587.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly all Australian ISPs block port 25 access to anything other than their mail server .
You can turn it off of course , but the majority of people do n't complain about it , or use 587 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly all Australian ISPs block port 25 access to anything other than their mail server.
You can turn it off of course, but the majority of people don't complain about it, or use 587.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891342</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>greenguy</author>
	<datestamp>1264439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is correct. I know plenty of people who are clueless about security, and computers generally (I'm thinking of the ones who ask me "Do I have Adobe on my computer?"), but I'm not prepared to tell them they have to stop using them until they become experts. The real solution here is to offer proactive solutions. The ISPs could provide them for free (including house calls) and probably still come out ahead financially.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is correct .
I know plenty of people who are clueless about security , and computers generally ( I 'm thinking of the ones who ask me " Do I have Adobe on my computer ?
" ) , but I 'm not prepared to tell them they have to stop using them until they become experts .
The real solution here is to offer proactive solutions .
The ISPs could provide them for free ( including house calls ) and probably still come out ahead financially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is correct.
I know plenty of people who are clueless about security, and computers generally (I'm thinking of the ones who ask me "Do I have Adobe on my computer?
"), but I'm not prepared to tell them they have to stop using them until they become experts.
The real solution here is to offer proactive solutions.
The ISPs could provide them for free (including house calls) and probably still come out ahead financially.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896416</id>
	<title>Re:Give a discount to those running clean systems.</title>
	<author>Stradivarius</author>
	<datestamp>1264416360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The owner of said computer is negligent and should have their connection isolated until the computer engaged in infraction is cleaned.</p></div><p>Calling the owner negligent is assuming a lot.  Don't get me wrong - plenty of them probably are.  But you can have your box automatically downloading patches, run a top-tier antivirus package, avoid visiting shady websites, and still get yourself infected by some 0-day exploit served off an ad server used by a respectable website (say, CNN).</p><p>Disconnecting infected users is a worthwhile idea.  Though wonder if malware writers won't adapt to that - detect disconnections or unusually slow throughput, go into a temporary hibernation, let the user show how his box isn't doing anything bad anymore, then wake up and resume.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We all know that 99.9\% of these botnet zombies are all running some version of M$ windoz</p></div><p>That is true... but if every n00b out there starting running Linux tomorrow I can guarantee you there would be a massive upswing in Linux malware. We'd have all the same problems. No operating system, web browser, or other complex software is completely free of security holes.  Nor are they likely to ever be, given that they're continually adding new features which means adding new bugs too.  Botnets are so profitable their authors will simply shift their attention to exploiting whatever platform is most popular.  Maybe it'll raise the bar versus Windows, but not enough to matter in the long run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The owner of said computer is negligent and should have their connection isolated until the computer engaged in infraction is cleaned.Calling the owner negligent is assuming a lot .
Do n't get me wrong - plenty of them probably are .
But you can have your box automatically downloading patches , run a top-tier antivirus package , avoid visiting shady websites , and still get yourself infected by some 0-day exploit served off an ad server used by a respectable website ( say , CNN ) .Disconnecting infected users is a worthwhile idea .
Though wonder if malware writers wo n't adapt to that - detect disconnections or unusually slow throughput , go into a temporary hibernation , let the user show how his box is n't doing anything bad anymore , then wake up and resume.We all know that 99.9 \ % of these botnet zombies are all running some version of M $ windozThat is true... but if every n00b out there starting running Linux tomorrow I can guarantee you there would be a massive upswing in Linux malware .
We 'd have all the same problems .
No operating system , web browser , or other complex software is completely free of security holes .
Nor are they likely to ever be , given that they 're continually adding new features which means adding new bugs too .
Botnets are so profitable their authors will simply shift their attention to exploiting whatever platform is most popular .
Maybe it 'll raise the bar versus Windows , but not enough to matter in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The owner of said computer is negligent and should have their connection isolated until the computer engaged in infraction is cleaned.Calling the owner negligent is assuming a lot.
Don't get me wrong - plenty of them probably are.
But you can have your box automatically downloading patches, run a top-tier antivirus package, avoid visiting shady websites, and still get yourself infected by some 0-day exploit served off an ad server used by a respectable website (say, CNN).Disconnecting infected users is a worthwhile idea.
Though wonder if malware writers won't adapt to that - detect disconnections or unusually slow throughput, go into a temporary hibernation, let the user show how his box isn't doing anything bad anymore, then wake up and resume.We all know that 99.9\% of these botnet zombies are all running some version of M$ windozThat is true... but if every n00b out there starting running Linux tomorrow I can guarantee you there would be a massive upswing in Linux malware.
We'd have all the same problems.
No operating system, web browser, or other complex software is completely free of security holes.
Nor are they likely to ever be, given that they're continually adding new features which means adding new bugs too.
Botnets are so profitable their authors will simply shift their attention to exploiting whatever platform is most popular.
Maybe it'll raise the bar versus Windows, but not enough to matter in the long run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893022</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264445640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Disconnecting compromised machines is useless. What will happen is that the user will pay $$ to some techie to repair their computer, only to be infected again the next time they click on that marvellous big flashy dick jumping on a green table after losing 100kg in a week and getting ripped at the same time with the big caption that says "You are the winner!".</p><p>The only sane thing to do is teaching people how that thing on their desk actually works. But then they would understand that firewalling pedopirateterrorist sites is useless, and that would be bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Disconnecting compromised machines is useless .
What will happen is that the user will pay $ $ to some techie to repair their computer , only to be infected again the next time they click on that marvellous big flashy dick jumping on a green table after losing 100kg in a week and getting ripped at the same time with the big caption that says " You are the winner !
" .The only sane thing to do is teaching people how that thing on their desk actually works .
But then they would understand that firewalling pedopirateterrorist sites is useless , and that would be bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Disconnecting compromised machines is useless.
What will happen is that the user will pay $$ to some techie to repair their computer, only to be infected again the next time they click on that marvellous big flashy dick jumping on a green table after losing 100kg in a week and getting ripped at the same time with the big caption that says "You are the winner!
".The only sane thing to do is teaching people how that thing on their desk actually works.
But then they would understand that firewalling pedopirateterrorist sites is useless, and that would be bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891164</id>
	<title>Re:Stop tinkering with things they don't understan</title>
	<author>berny@work</author>
	<datestamp>1264439100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark me as flamebait if you like, but this was started by the Internet Association, so chances are they probably have a pretty good idea on what they are doing. They would have buy in from their staff to be able to get this one through, their staff are probably sick of having to deal with all the SPAM complaints and everything else from these hosts. They probably have an even better idea on what they are doing to their network than what you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark me as flamebait if you like , but this was started by the Internet Association , so chances are they probably have a pretty good idea on what they are doing .
They would have buy in from their staff to be able to get this one through , their staff are probably sick of having to deal with all the SPAM complaints and everything else from these hosts .
They probably have an even better idea on what they are doing to their network than what you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark me as flamebait if you like, but this was started by the Internet Association, so chances are they probably have a pretty good idea on what they are doing.
They would have buy in from their staff to be able to get this one through, their staff are probably sick of having to deal with all the SPAM complaints and everything else from these hosts.
They probably have an even better idea on what they are doing to their network than what you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They usually watch for excessive traffic on specific ports.  Since the most immediately profitable use of a botnetted machine is spam, the majority of botnetted PCs are either running open mail relays or are themselves functioning as outgoing mailservers.  Many ISPs (including two in my area) watch for excessive traffic going OUT on TCP port 25.  Unless you are running a mailserver, your computer has no legitimate reason to send out over that port in volume.  Most ISP mailservers are SSL nowadays anyway and are off port 25 so you don't even need to use that if you are connecting to your ISP's mailserver from off-network.  (and many ISPs outright block port 25 outgoing from anything in their network besides their mailserver)  Many ISPs react the same if your computer is listening on port 25 (acting as an open relay)</p><p>So if you are pushing megs (or gigs) a day every day on port 25, there's better than 99\% chance your machine is botnetted.  It doesn't take speculation to figure that out, and the odds of false-positives are very close to zero.</p><p>That said, I have <b>no sympathy</b> for someone that knows their computer has a problem that's causing other people grief.  That's the most basic understanding of the problem that is given when your ISP gives you a phonecall or email saying you have a problem and need to fix it or we will cut you off.  If you're too stupid to acknowledge this and take responsibility for fixing it, or just plain don't care, I'd much rather see you off the internet and out of my Inbox.  If you don't care that someone else has violated you by hijacking your computer that's fine with me, until they start using it to violate <b>me</b>, and that's when I start having a say in the matter.</p><p>If you want a fun example to separate the computer from the problem, here's something easier to understand:  ABC Construction company does building demolitions.  They leave their explosives on site and not locked up.  They keep getting their explosives stolen.  OK I don't care about <i>that</i>, it's their loss.  But then stuff around town start getting blown up and the explosives are easily traced back to you.  That's when it's time for the police to come have a talk with you about securing your explosives.  You do not have the right to continue leaving dangerous things so easily accessible that the public is constantly being hurt by them.  Even if you want to ignore your moral responsibility for it, <b>the public won't stand for it</b> and you lose your say in the matter.  You WILL secure your things or you WILL go away.</p><p>Another <i>excellent</i> example is how several states legally require you to have a lock on your anhydrous ammonia tanks to prevent theft and use in drug manufacture.  Also, most universities now are requiring students to install AV software on their computers before they're allowed to use the campus net.  Your precedents have already been set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They usually watch for excessive traffic on specific ports .
Since the most immediately profitable use of a botnetted machine is spam , the majority of botnetted PCs are either running open mail relays or are themselves functioning as outgoing mailservers .
Many ISPs ( including two in my area ) watch for excessive traffic going OUT on TCP port 25 .
Unless you are running a mailserver , your computer has no legitimate reason to send out over that port in volume .
Most ISP mailservers are SSL nowadays anyway and are off port 25 so you do n't even need to use that if you are connecting to your ISP 's mailserver from off-network .
( and many ISPs outright block port 25 outgoing from anything in their network besides their mailserver ) Many ISPs react the same if your computer is listening on port 25 ( acting as an open relay ) So if you are pushing megs ( or gigs ) a day every day on port 25 , there 's better than 99 \ % chance your machine is botnetted .
It does n't take speculation to figure that out , and the odds of false-positives are very close to zero.That said , I have no sympathy for someone that knows their computer has a problem that 's causing other people grief .
That 's the most basic understanding of the problem that is given when your ISP gives you a phonecall or email saying you have a problem and need to fix it or we will cut you off .
If you 're too stupid to acknowledge this and take responsibility for fixing it , or just plain do n't care , I 'd much rather see you off the internet and out of my Inbox .
If you do n't care that someone else has violated you by hijacking your computer that 's fine with me , until they start using it to violate me , and that 's when I start having a say in the matter.If you want a fun example to separate the computer from the problem , here 's something easier to understand : ABC Construction company does building demolitions .
They leave their explosives on site and not locked up .
They keep getting their explosives stolen .
OK I do n't care about that , it 's their loss .
But then stuff around town start getting blown up and the explosives are easily traced back to you .
That 's when it 's time for the police to come have a talk with you about securing your explosives .
You do not have the right to continue leaving dangerous things so easily accessible that the public is constantly being hurt by them .
Even if you want to ignore your moral responsibility for it , the public wo n't stand for it and you lose your say in the matter .
You WILL secure your things or you WILL go away.Another excellent example is how several states legally require you to have a lock on your anhydrous ammonia tanks to prevent theft and use in drug manufacture .
Also , most universities now are requiring students to install AV software on their computers before they 're allowed to use the campus net .
Your precedents have already been set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They usually watch for excessive traffic on specific ports.
Since the most immediately profitable use of a botnetted machine is spam, the majority of botnetted PCs are either running open mail relays or are themselves functioning as outgoing mailservers.
Many ISPs (including two in my area) watch for excessive traffic going OUT on TCP port 25.
Unless you are running a mailserver, your computer has no legitimate reason to send out over that port in volume.
Most ISP mailservers are SSL nowadays anyway and are off port 25 so you don't even need to use that if you are connecting to your ISP's mailserver from off-network.
(and many ISPs outright block port 25 outgoing from anything in their network besides their mailserver)  Many ISPs react the same if your computer is listening on port 25 (acting as an open relay)So if you are pushing megs (or gigs) a day every day on port 25, there's better than 99\% chance your machine is botnetted.
It doesn't take speculation to figure that out, and the odds of false-positives are very close to zero.That said, I have no sympathy for someone that knows their computer has a problem that's causing other people grief.
That's the most basic understanding of the problem that is given when your ISP gives you a phonecall or email saying you have a problem and need to fix it or we will cut you off.
If you're too stupid to acknowledge this and take responsibility for fixing it, or just plain don't care, I'd much rather see you off the internet and out of my Inbox.
If you don't care that someone else has violated you by hijacking your computer that's fine with me, until they start using it to violate me, and that's when I start having a say in the matter.If you want a fun example to separate the computer from the problem, here's something easier to understand:  ABC Construction company does building demolitions.
They leave their explosives on site and not locked up.
They keep getting their explosives stolen.
OK I don't care about that, it's their loss.
But then stuff around town start getting blown up and the explosives are easily traced back to you.
That's when it's time for the police to come have a talk with you about securing your explosives.
You do not have the right to continue leaving dangerous things so easily accessible that the public is constantly being hurt by them.
Even if you want to ignore your moral responsibility for it, the public won't stand for it and you lose your say in the matter.
You WILL secure your things or you WILL go away.Another excellent example is how several states legally require you to have a lock on your anhydrous ammonia tanks to prevent theft and use in drug manufacture.
Also, most universities now are requiring students to install AV software on their computers before they're allowed to use the campus net.
Your precedents have already been set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890840</id>
	<title>Re:why not directly disconnect every Windows machi</title>
	<author>thinktech</author>
	<datestamp>1264437960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>having a computer beneath the notice of hackers is a great idea. that's why I only post on slashdot using my web-tv console.</htmltext>
<tokenext>having a computer beneath the notice of hackers is a great idea .
that 's why I only post on slashdot using my web-tv console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>having a computer beneath the notice of hackers is a great idea.
that's why I only post on slashdot using my web-tv console.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891824</id>
	<title>hackers dont care this is fun</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1264441140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all this will do is create a lot of pissed off stupid people that get unleashed into the real world<br>rather then stuck in ther basements playing doom</p><p>HAHAH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all this will do is create a lot of pissed off stupid people that get unleashed into the real worldrather then stuck in ther basements playing doomHAHAH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all this will do is create a lot of pissed off stupid people that get unleashed into the real worldrather then stuck in ther basements playing doomHAHAH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893074</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, isn't it?</title>
	<author>BradleyUffner</author>
	<datestamp>1264445940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the operating system's job is to manage memory allocation, physical devices, and manage scheduling of threads and processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the operating system 's job is to manage memory allocation , physical devices , and manage scheduling of threads and processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the operating system's job is to manage memory allocation, physical devices, and manage scheduling of threads and processes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30900592</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just filter out the bot net traffic?</title>
	<author>linuxpyro</author>
	<datestamp>1264444020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not too familiar with how the botnets operate, but that may or may not be easy.  First of all if a bot is meant to do something like take part in a DDoS attack it may very well be making port 80 requests, so easily filtering that means blocking Web traffic, which is what most people use their Internet connections for.  (The bot could also do something like send out Email, similar problem.)  As for command and control, I guess that depends.  I'm sure a lot of the botnets these days don't just use IRC and actually have some sort of encrypted protocol, but it's hard to tell, especially if they use a range of ports for the traffic.  Heck, maybe they even just make and respond to HTTP requests to talk to each other, bringing back the first problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not too familiar with how the botnets operate , but that may or may not be easy .
First of all if a bot is meant to do something like take part in a DDoS attack it may very well be making port 80 requests , so easily filtering that means blocking Web traffic , which is what most people use their Internet connections for .
( The bot could also do something like send out Email , similar problem .
) As for command and control , I guess that depends .
I 'm sure a lot of the botnets these days do n't just use IRC and actually have some sort of encrypted protocol , but it 's hard to tell , especially if they use a range of ports for the traffic .
Heck , maybe they even just make and respond to HTTP requests to talk to each other , bringing back the first problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not too familiar with how the botnets operate, but that may or may not be easy.
First of all if a bot is meant to do something like take part in a DDoS attack it may very well be making port 80 requests, so easily filtering that means blocking Web traffic, which is what most people use their Internet connections for.
(The bot could also do something like send out Email, similar problem.
)  As for command and control, I guess that depends.
I'm sure a lot of the botnets these days don't just use IRC and actually have some sort of encrypted protocol, but it's hard to tell, especially if they use a range of ports for the traffic.
Heck, maybe they even just make and respond to HTTP requests to talk to each other, bringing back the first problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30915170</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264593420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to "fix the problem".</p></div><p>I know. It's pure win-win. They get disconnected, since they can't fix the problem. They stay disconnected, since they <b>still</b> can't fix the problem.</p><p>What's not to like?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to " fix the problem " .I know .
It 's pure win-win .
They get disconnected , since they ca n't fix the problem .
They stay disconnected , since they still ca n't fix the problem.What 's not to like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to "fix the problem".I know.
It's pure win-win.
They get disconnected, since they can't fix the problem.
They stay disconnected, since they still can't fix the problem.What's not to like?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892220</id>
	<title>Re:Give a discount to those running clean systems.</title>
	<author>lwriemen</author>
	<datestamp>1264442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OS/2 and eComStation users should get a 75\% discount!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OS/2 and eComStation users should get a 75 \ % discount !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS/2 and eComStation users should get a 75\% discount!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892724</id>
	<title>Block the abused ports first, or firewall them</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1264444140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't disconnect them.  First, only block the ports being abused.  If that doesn't work, confine them to a "walled garden" that tells them who to call and fix the problem.  Then when the do call, <b>help them fix the problem</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't disconnect them .
First , only block the ports being abused .
If that does n't work , confine them to a " walled garden " that tells them who to call and fix the problem .
Then when the do call , help them fix the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't disconnect them.
First, only block the ports being abused.
If that doesn't work, confine them to a "walled garden" that tells them who to call and fix the problem.
Then when the do call, help them fix the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30898116</id>
	<title>Re:Open invite to hackers: Come steal our stuff!!</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1264424280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're already doing it with banks and the ATO, so what's your point? An anti-phishing campaign sounds like a good idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're already doing it with banks and the ATO , so what 's your point ?
An anti-phishing campaign sounds like a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're already doing it with banks and the ATO, so what's your point?
An anti-phishing campaign sounds like a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778</id>
	<title>why not directly disconnect every Windows machine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264437780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite an accurate solution, but statistically close enough...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite an accurate solution , but statistically close enough.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite an accurate solution, but statistically close enough...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892306</id>
	<title>Re:New definition of zombies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264442820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue crazy guy who thinks ever business proposal is a conspiracy by the government to "finally" get him.  Err, if they wanted you, you'd be in a jail cell. No need for some business regulations about zombies to make it look legit(?)). Also, I think your tin foil hat is looking a bit crooked.  Some alpha waves might be getting in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue crazy guy who thinks ever business proposal is a conspiracy by the government to " finally " get him .
Err , if they wanted you , you 'd be in a jail cell .
No need for some business regulations about zombies to make it look legit ( ? ) ) .
Also , I think your tin foil hat is looking a bit crooked .
Some alpha waves might be getting in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue crazy guy who thinks ever business proposal is a conspiracy by the government to "finally" get him.
Err, if they wanted you, you'd be in a jail cell.
No need for some business regulations about zombies to make it look legit(?)).
Also, I think your tin foil hat is looking a bit crooked.
Some alpha waves might be getting in!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890826</id>
	<title>Could it be a Good Thing to prune some leaf nodes?</title>
	<author>LordWill</author>
	<datestamp>1264437900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would happen if those ISPs notice increased profit and customer satisfaction (overall) when they are paying less for resources used up by bots?

(Assuming they don't have problems with false-positives or find far too many customers being cut off, etc.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would happen if those ISPs notice increased profit and customer satisfaction ( overall ) when they are paying less for resources used up by bots ?
( Assuming they do n't have problems with false-positives or find far too many customers being cut off , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would happen if those ISPs notice increased profit and customer satisfaction (overall) when they are paying less for resources used up by bots?
(Assuming they don't have problems with false-positives or find far too many customers being cut off, etc.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30895882</id>
	<title>$!=Incentive Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264414560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who cares? He owns it, its his responsibility to fix it. Pay someone if he cant figure it out and stop clicking on NAKED\_PHOTOS.EXE or doesnt understand why he should be doing those Microsoft updates.  Should we also coddle drivers with unsafe cars because they arent mechanics?</p><p>Its only when there's a financial incentive to keep a machine patched and thinking before clicking that people will begin doing so. Or switching to OSX or Linux. The status quo of not taking responsibility for your own computer isnt sustainable and isnt helping anyone.</p></div><p>Money isn't necessarily a sufficient incentive either. Many people see a monetary loss, and if it's within their spending cash allotment, can ignore the financial drain. Look at the example in freakanomics: The Israeli daycare needed a way to discourage late pick ups. So they implemented a penalty based system: if you're late pay $, if you're more late pay more $. After the new policy went into effect, suddenly MORE people were late picking up their kids. By monetizing the penalty, the day care effectively told people, "it's ok to be late, it's just going to cost you."</p><p>I find it unlikely that a tiered cost for internet access would be sufficient to encourage people to maintain their boxes better or discourage them from proverbially leaving them to rust in the rain.</p><p>Also, consider the lawsuit MS would launch if such a law were passed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
He owns it , its his responsibility to fix it .
Pay someone if he cant figure it out and stop clicking on NAKED \ _PHOTOS.EXE or doesnt understand why he should be doing those Microsoft updates .
Should we also coddle drivers with unsafe cars because they arent mechanics ? Its only when there 's a financial incentive to keep a machine patched and thinking before clicking that people will begin doing so .
Or switching to OSX or Linux .
The status quo of not taking responsibility for your own computer isnt sustainable and isnt helping anyone.Money is n't necessarily a sufficient incentive either .
Many people see a monetary loss , and if it 's within their spending cash allotment , can ignore the financial drain .
Look at the example in freakanomics : The Israeli daycare needed a way to discourage late pick ups .
So they implemented a penalty based system : if you 're late pay $ , if you 're more late pay more $ .
After the new policy went into effect , suddenly MORE people were late picking up their kids .
By monetizing the penalty , the day care effectively told people , " it 's ok to be late , it 's just going to cost you .
" I find it unlikely that a tiered cost for internet access would be sufficient to encourage people to maintain their boxes better or discourage them from proverbially leaving them to rust in the rain.Also , consider the lawsuit MS would launch if such a law were passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
He owns it, its his responsibility to fix it.
Pay someone if he cant figure it out and stop clicking on NAKED\_PHOTOS.EXE or doesnt understand why he should be doing those Microsoft updates.
Should we also coddle drivers with unsafe cars because they arent mechanics?Its only when there's a financial incentive to keep a machine patched and thinking before clicking that people will begin doing so.
Or switching to OSX or Linux.
The status quo of not taking responsibility for your own computer isnt sustainable and isnt helping anyone.Money isn't necessarily a sufficient incentive either.
Many people see a monetary loss, and if it's within their spending cash allotment, can ignore the financial drain.
Look at the example in freakanomics: The Israeli daycare needed a way to discourage late pick ups.
So they implemented a penalty based system: if you're late pay $, if you're more late pay more $.
After the new policy went into effect, suddenly MORE people were late picking up their kids.
By monetizing the penalty, the day care effectively told people, "it's ok to be late, it's just going to cost you.
"I find it unlikely that a tiered cost for internet access would be sufficient to encourage people to maintain their boxes better or discourage them from proverbially leaving them to rust in the rain.Also, consider the lawsuit MS would launch if such a law were passed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892658</id>
	<title>Re:Free botnet removal support?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264443840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then don't disconnect zombies. Redirect any request from those IPs to a web page that explain the situation and why that computer shouldnt be in the net for their own good, and have as direct download most typical cleaning and other essential at that stage applications, and maybe listing local companies that do the cleaning if the person dont want to fresh format.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then do n't disconnect zombies .
Redirect any request from those IPs to a web page that explain the situation and why that computer shouldnt be in the net for their own good , and have as direct download most typical cleaning and other essential at that stage applications , and maybe listing local companies that do the cleaning if the person dont want to fresh format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then don't disconnect zombies.
Redirect any request from those IPs to a web page that explain the situation and why that computer shouldnt be in the net for their own good, and have as direct download most typical cleaning and other essential at that stage applications, and maybe listing local companies that do the cleaning if the person dont want to fresh format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30899970</id>
	<title>About damned time!</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1264438080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they looking for some candidates to shut down?  I've got a nice list of IP addresses I gleaned from my Junk folder.

</p><p>Free for the asking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they looking for some candidates to shut down ?
I 've got a nice list of IP addresses I gleaned from my Junk folder .
Free for the asking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they looking for some candidates to shut down?
I've got a nice list of IP addresses I gleaned from my Junk folder.
Free for the asking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890884</id>
	<title>Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264438080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I'd love to have these machines disconnected, I don't think ISPs should be looking at the content of any connection. from my perspective it's about the same as the phone company disconnecting me for spreading untrue rumours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I 'd love to have these machines disconnected , I do n't think ISPs should be looking at the content of any connection .
from my perspective it 's about the same as the phone company disconnecting me for spreading untrue rumours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I'd love to have these machines disconnected, I don't think ISPs should be looking at the content of any connection.
from my perspective it's about the same as the phone company disconnecting me for spreading untrue rumours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890908</id>
	<title>Re:Stop tinkering with things they don't understan</title>
	<author>liquidpele</author>
	<datestamp>1264438200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously?  This needed to be done for all countries 10 years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
This needed to be done for all countries 10 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
This needed to be done for all countries 10 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897326</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>jyx</author>
	<datestamp>1264420560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who cares? He owns it, its his responsibility to fix it. Pay someone if he cant figure it out and stop clicking on NAKED\_PHOTOS.EXE</p></div><p>Your link doesn't work, can you send me this via email?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
He owns it , its his responsibility to fix it .
Pay someone if he cant figure it out and stop clicking on NAKED \ _PHOTOS.EXEYour link does n't work , can you send me this via email ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
He owns it, its his responsibility to fix it.
Pay someone if he cant figure it out and stop clicking on NAKED\_PHOTOS.EXEYour link doesn't work, can you send me this via email?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897486</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why there is a whole host of companies out there who run legitimate (as in not Geek Squad) computer repair and tuning services. That's why there is a whole lot of information out there to help you fix the problem yourself. Also I'm not sure how it works where you come from, but here in Australia ISPs do not really like seeing their customers leave and will often offer all sorts of incentives to stay. If Telstra can offer me $180 credit for being a loyal customer, I'm sure they can send out CD with antivirus software, or talk the clueless user through steps to eliminate said botnet over the phone.</p><p>Clearing a computer is not something that requires a lot of thought and can be proceduralised making it a perfect job for the indian call centre employee while they are trying to upsell you the next greatest internet service.</p><p>Car analogy: If you puncture the sump going over a speedbump in your car and are leaking oil all over the road while your car is slowly dying I don't expect you to know how to repair it. I expect you to take it to a workshop and pay to get it fixed properly.</p><p>A computer is an appliance, so why is it so very different from a washing machine or dishwasher when it comes to getting people in to have it fixed. This thought will likely be lost to all of slashdot here, because we ARE the repairers. The majority here simply can't make the distinction between getting someone in to fix the dishwasher compared to helping mother who's computer is bluescreening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why there is a whole host of companies out there who run legitimate ( as in not Geek Squad ) computer repair and tuning services .
That 's why there is a whole lot of information out there to help you fix the problem yourself .
Also I 'm not sure how it works where you come from , but here in Australia ISPs do not really like seeing their customers leave and will often offer all sorts of incentives to stay .
If Telstra can offer me $ 180 credit for being a loyal customer , I 'm sure they can send out CD with antivirus software , or talk the clueless user through steps to eliminate said botnet over the phone.Clearing a computer is not something that requires a lot of thought and can be proceduralised making it a perfect job for the indian call centre employee while they are trying to upsell you the next greatest internet service.Car analogy : If you puncture the sump going over a speedbump in your car and are leaking oil all over the road while your car is slowly dying I do n't expect you to know how to repair it .
I expect you to take it to a workshop and pay to get it fixed properly.A computer is an appliance , so why is it so very different from a washing machine or dishwasher when it comes to getting people in to have it fixed .
This thought will likely be lost to all of slashdot here , because we ARE the repairers .
The majority here simply ca n't make the distinction between getting someone in to fix the dishwasher compared to helping mother who 's computer is bluescreening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why there is a whole host of companies out there who run legitimate (as in not Geek Squad) computer repair and tuning services.
That's why there is a whole lot of information out there to help you fix the problem yourself.
Also I'm not sure how it works where you come from, but here in Australia ISPs do not really like seeing their customers leave and will often offer all sorts of incentives to stay.
If Telstra can offer me $180 credit for being a loyal customer, I'm sure they can send out CD with antivirus software, or talk the clueless user through steps to eliminate said botnet over the phone.Clearing a computer is not something that requires a lot of thought and can be proceduralised making it a perfect job for the indian call centre employee while they are trying to upsell you the next greatest internet service.Car analogy: If you puncture the sump going over a speedbump in your car and are leaking oil all over the road while your car is slowly dying I don't expect you to know how to repair it.
I expect you to take it to a workshop and pay to get it fixed properly.A computer is an appliance, so why is it so very different from a washing machine or dishwasher when it comes to getting people in to have it fixed.
This thought will likely be lost to all of slashdot here, because we ARE the repairers.
The majority here simply can't make the distinction between getting someone in to fix the dishwasher compared to helping mother who's computer is bluescreening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891594</id>
	<title>The DIY Dilemma</title>
	<author>byrdfl3w</author>
	<datestamp>1264440300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before they are finally disconnected, most average (i.e not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.) surfers will quite possibly use their remaining Internet time trying to figure out why their connection is slowing down, first trying a few simple search queries - which, combined with a short attention span and an uncontrollable desire to click on anything that flashes, will then lead them willingly into a morass of dodgy, bot-laden sites, further infecting themselves, their connection finally grinding to a halt so that they are unable to check that email from their ISP that they neglected  to look at a month ago..<br> <br>--<br>If at first you don't succeed, cheat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before they are finally disconnected , most average ( i.e not / .
) surfers will quite possibly use their remaining Internet time trying to figure out why their connection is slowing down , first trying a few simple search queries - which , combined with a short attention span and an uncontrollable desire to click on anything that flashes , will then lead them willingly into a morass of dodgy , bot-laden sites , further infecting themselves , their connection finally grinding to a halt so that they are unable to check that email from their ISP that they neglected to look at a month ago.. --If at first you do n't succeed , cheat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before they are finally disconnected, most average (i.e not /.
) surfers will quite possibly use their remaining Internet time trying to figure out why their connection is slowing down, first trying a few simple search queries - which, combined with a short attention span and an uncontrollable desire to click on anything that flashes, will then lead them willingly into a morass of dodgy, bot-laden sites, further infecting themselves, their connection finally grinding to a halt so that they are unable to check that email from their ISP that they neglected  to look at a month ago.. --If at first you don't succeed, cheat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891328</id>
	<title>so what?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264439580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>everyone talks about their rights, but few speak up about their responsibilities</p><p>if people don't live up to their responsibilities, they lose their rights. not as a matter of some government mandate, but as a simple logical, natural consequence of ruining things- the internet, safe roads, a healthy economy, etc., for other people</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>everyone talks about their rights , but few speak up about their responsibilitiesif people do n't live up to their responsibilities , they lose their rights .
not as a matter of some government mandate , but as a simple logical , natural consequence of ruining things- the internet , safe roads , a healthy economy , etc. , for other people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>everyone talks about their rights, but few speak up about their responsibilitiesif people don't live up to their responsibilities, they lose their rights.
not as a matter of some government mandate, but as a simple logical, natural consequence of ruining things- the internet, safe roads, a healthy economy, etc., for other people</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897802</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just filter out the bot net traffic?</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1264422900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two-pronged attack: cut off the zombies and back-trace the control connections.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two-pronged attack : cut off the zombies and back-trace the control connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two-pronged attack: cut off the zombies and back-trace the control connections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30913442</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>BlindBear</author>
	<datestamp>1264525380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bit like people pissing in your swimming pool, you ask them not to, they continue, you throw them out until they change their ways. Only then are they allowed back in.
Wake up people it is our internet. If we have to be a little tough and educational on some users to reduce the damage that the scum can do so be it. I'll bet there are some people in this world reading this who are not mechanics but still know how to check the water,oil,steering,fuel,tyres etc.
 I learned to do those things on my car, and I learned how to do basic windows maintenance on my first couple of computers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... then I woke up and went Linux and now maintenance is easier but I still have to put up with spam<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. probably generated on a defective Billy Box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit like people pissing in your swimming pool , you ask them not to , they continue , you throw them out until they change their ways .
Only then are they allowed back in .
Wake up people it is our internet .
If we have to be a little tough and educational on some users to reduce the damage that the scum can do so be it .
I 'll bet there are some people in this world reading this who are not mechanics but still know how to check the water,oil,steering,fuel,tyres etc .
I learned to do those things on my car , and I learned how to do basic windows maintenance on my first couple of computers .... then I woke up and went Linux and now maintenance is easier but I still have to put up with spam .. probably generated on a defective Billy Box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit like people pissing in your swimming pool, you ask them not to, they continue, you throw them out until they change their ways.
Only then are they allowed back in.
Wake up people it is our internet.
If we have to be a little tough and educational on some users to reduce the damage that the scum can do so be it.
I'll bet there are some people in this world reading this who are not mechanics but still know how to check the water,oil,steering,fuel,tyres etc.
I learned to do those things on my car, and I learned how to do basic windows maintenance on my first couple of computers .... then I woke up and went Linux and now maintenance is easier but I still have to put up with spam .. probably generated on a defective Billy Box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894008</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264450140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your connection is partaking in ddos attacks, sending spam or trying to brute force it's way into a server somewhere, apart from being somewhat of a nuisance, it's actually illegal. Not just in the terms of use of your internet connection, but also in conflict with the law in just about any country these days. Just because you may not be doing such things personally, you are still responsible for the crap that comes of your connection. Any victim of an internet crime originating from your IP address is well within their rights to press charges. If your ISP decides to shut you down, there's probably a very good reason for it, and you should probably thank them for doing so because apart from the hackery, that malware on your network is probably busy mining passwords, redirecting online banking sessions, logging keystrokes, making screenshots and whatnot.</p><p>You should also know that it's probably illegal for your ISP to collect anything but metadata about the packets that go over your connection, so port numbers, destinations etc only. Meaning that a *lot* of things simply cannot be detected by your ISP but actually get reported in by individuals and organizations who are victims of your hacking/spamming/ddosing. If your ISP would do nothing with those reports, sooner or later parts of their network end up in various blacklists, making your connections get dropped and your emails rejected.</p><p>So this is a good thing. A clean internet is better for everyone. This has nothing to do with content and everything with your internet connection being abused because there's malware running on your system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your connection is partaking in ddos attacks , sending spam or trying to brute force it 's way into a server somewhere , apart from being somewhat of a nuisance , it 's actually illegal .
Not just in the terms of use of your internet connection , but also in conflict with the law in just about any country these days .
Just because you may not be doing such things personally , you are still responsible for the crap that comes of your connection .
Any victim of an internet crime originating from your IP address is well within their rights to press charges .
If your ISP decides to shut you down , there 's probably a very good reason for it , and you should probably thank them for doing so because apart from the hackery , that malware on your network is probably busy mining passwords , redirecting online banking sessions , logging keystrokes , making screenshots and whatnot.You should also know that it 's probably illegal for your ISP to collect anything but metadata about the packets that go over your connection , so port numbers , destinations etc only .
Meaning that a * lot * of things simply can not be detected by your ISP but actually get reported in by individuals and organizations who are victims of your hacking/spamming/ddosing .
If your ISP would do nothing with those reports , sooner or later parts of their network end up in various blacklists , making your connections get dropped and your emails rejected.So this is a good thing .
A clean internet is better for everyone .
This has nothing to do with content and everything with your internet connection being abused because there 's malware running on your system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your connection is partaking in ddos attacks, sending spam or trying to brute force it's way into a server somewhere, apart from being somewhat of a nuisance, it's actually illegal.
Not just in the terms of use of your internet connection, but also in conflict with the law in just about any country these days.
Just because you may not be doing such things personally, you are still responsible for the crap that comes of your connection.
Any victim of an internet crime originating from your IP address is well within their rights to press charges.
If your ISP decides to shut you down, there's probably a very good reason for it, and you should probably thank them for doing so because apart from the hackery, that malware on your network is probably busy mining passwords, redirecting online banking sessions, logging keystrokes, making screenshots and whatnot.You should also know that it's probably illegal for your ISP to collect anything but metadata about the packets that go over your connection, so port numbers, destinations etc only.
Meaning that a *lot* of things simply cannot be detected by your ISP but actually get reported in by individuals and organizations who are victims of your hacking/spamming/ddosing.
If your ISP would do nothing with those reports, sooner or later parts of their network end up in various blacklists, making your connections get dropped and your emails rejected.So this is a good thing.
A clean internet is better for everyone.
This has nothing to do with content and everything with your internet connection being abused because there's malware running on your system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891228</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264439280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be<br>&gt; able to "fix the problem".</p><p>Unplugging the computer fixes the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be &gt; able to " fix the problem " .Unplugging the computer fixes the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be&gt; able to "fix the problem".Unplugging the computer fixes the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897764</id>
	<title>Re:Give a discount to those running clean systems.</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1264422660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they're not willingly doing is completely absurd, and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world.</p></div><p>
Did you read the summary? Disconnection is the last resort. They notify first and most likely offer to help. I'm sure there will be a flood of people in the local paper offering to clean up machines for a small cost. Disconnection is only for the people who <b>refuse to do anything</b> about the problem.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they 're not willingly doing is completely absurd , and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world .
Did you read the summary ?
Disconnection is the last resort .
They notify first and most likely offer to help .
I 'm sure there will be a flood of people in the local paper offering to clean up machines for a small cost .
Disconnection is only for the people who refuse to do anything about the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they're not willingly doing is completely absurd, and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world.
Did you read the summary?
Disconnection is the last resort.
They notify first and most likely offer to help.
I'm sure there will be a flood of people in the local paper offering to clean up machines for a small cost.
Disconnection is only for the people who refuse to do anything about the problem.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30901530</id>
	<title>Why wait?</title>
	<author>xenobyte</author>
	<datestamp>1264498920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once it has been identified that an end user has a zombie on their end, send the user a mail and a letter with a simple deadline - something like 72 hours to fix the problem or be disconnected. If the user doesn't fix the issue, disconnect. When the user have fixed the issue, he/she can petition to have the connection re-opened. Simple as that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once it has been identified that an end user has a zombie on their end , send the user a mail and a letter with a simple deadline - something like 72 hours to fix the problem or be disconnected .
If the user does n't fix the issue , disconnect .
When the user have fixed the issue , he/she can petition to have the connection re-opened .
Simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once it has been identified that an end user has a zombie on their end, send the user a mail and a letter with a simple deadline - something like 72 hours to fix the problem or be disconnected.
If the user doesn't fix the issue, disconnect.
When the user have fixed the issue, he/she can petition to have the connection re-opened.
Simple as that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891574</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>david.emery</author>
	<datestamp>1264440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to "fix the problem".</p></div><p>True...  But this is where frankly I'd like to see Microsoft, in particular, -pay up- to provide fixes for such machines.  As a strawman:  Microsoft provides tools and training, and then the end user pays a relatively low fixed fee to get his machine deloused before it can be put back on the net.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to " fix the problem " .True... But this is where frankly I 'd like to see Microsoft , in particular , -pay up- to provide fixes for such machines .
As a strawman : Microsoft provides tools and training , and then the end user pays a relatively low fixed fee to get his machine deloused before it can be put back on the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to "fix the problem".True...  But this is where frankly I'd like to see Microsoft, in particular, -pay up- to provide fixes for such machines.
As a strawman:  Microsoft provides tools and training, and then the end user pays a relatively low fixed fee to get his machine deloused before it can be put back on the net.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893262</id>
	<title>Go after the CnC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264446720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why harm 100,000 users when you can just disable 1 CnC system?  Researchers have already shown, over and over, that is is possible to not only take over botnets but to shut them down.  If all the ISPs are going to get together and work as a team then why not work on THAT?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why harm 100,000 users when you can just disable 1 CnC system ?
Researchers have already shown , over and over , that is is possible to not only take over botnets but to shut them down .
If all the ISPs are going to get together and work as a team then why not work on THAT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why harm 100,000 users when you can just disable 1 CnC system?
Researchers have already shown, over and over, that is is possible to not only take over botnets but to shut them down.
If all the ISPs are going to get together and work as a team then why not work on THAT?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891878</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>stirz</author>
	<datestamp>1264441320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, at least the intended mechanism will make sure that people notice that their PC is abused. Furthermore, it imposes pressure on people to care about some basic security measures. I think, many of them will soon take care - in whatever way. But if they refuse to realize that their data is in trouble and that they are (passively) involved in online crimes, why not shut down their net access? Someone who does not exactly know what to do will know the shop where (s)he bought the equipment or even a local shop that offers paid support - there is no excuse in that case.<br> <br>
I've made some similar experience on my own some years ago while living on campus connected to a network of about 1,000 machines. The admins enforced a "three strikes" directive: if someone's machine was spreading viruses via internet access or via FTP/SMB shares or misbehaved in other ways (disturbing the DHCP and break-in attempts on internal servers, mainly), (s)he got a notice in her/his (real life!) post box to stop misbehaving/to fix the computer. As I recall, the note contained a paragraph offering help in case people weren't able to cope with the problem themselves. They only had to block less that 10 Machines during the time I lived there (4 years, approx.), as people really reacted quickly and we could even observe a (small) learning curve because new inhabitants mostly were briefed by their neighbours shortly after they had moved in.<br> <br>
So: Go ahead, Aussie ISPs! That's definitely the way to go - and to further sysadmin appreciation, but that's a different piece of.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least the intended mechanism will make sure that people notice that their PC is abused .
Furthermore , it imposes pressure on people to care about some basic security measures .
I think , many of them will soon take care - in whatever way .
But if they refuse to realize that their data is in trouble and that they are ( passively ) involved in online crimes , why not shut down their net access ?
Someone who does not exactly know what to do will know the shop where ( s ) he bought the equipment or even a local shop that offers paid support - there is no excuse in that case .
I 've made some similar experience on my own some years ago while living on campus connected to a network of about 1,000 machines .
The admins enforced a " three strikes " directive : if someone 's machine was spreading viruses via internet access or via FTP/SMB shares or misbehaved in other ways ( disturbing the DHCP and break-in attempts on internal servers , mainly ) , ( s ) he got a notice in her/his ( real life !
) post box to stop misbehaving/to fix the computer .
As I recall , the note contained a paragraph offering help in case people were n't able to cope with the problem themselves .
They only had to block less that 10 Machines during the time I lived there ( 4 years , approx .
) , as people really reacted quickly and we could even observe a ( small ) learning curve because new inhabitants mostly were briefed by their neighbours shortly after they had moved in .
So : Go ahead , Aussie ISPs !
That 's definitely the way to go - and to further sysadmin appreciation , but that 's a different piece of.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least the intended mechanism will make sure that people notice that their PC is abused.
Furthermore, it imposes pressure on people to care about some basic security measures.
I think, many of them will soon take care - in whatever way.
But if they refuse to realize that their data is in trouble and that they are (passively) involved in online crimes, why not shut down their net access?
Someone who does not exactly know what to do will know the shop where (s)he bought the equipment or even a local shop that offers paid support - there is no excuse in that case.
I've made some similar experience on my own some years ago while living on campus connected to a network of about 1,000 machines.
The admins enforced a "three strikes" directive: if someone's machine was spreading viruses via internet access or via FTP/SMB shares or misbehaved in other ways (disturbing the DHCP and break-in attempts on internal servers, mainly), (s)he got a notice in her/his (real life!
) post box to stop misbehaving/to fix the computer.
As I recall, the note contained a paragraph offering help in case people weren't able to cope with the problem themselves.
They only had to block less that 10 Machines during the time I lived there (4 years, approx.
), as people really reacted quickly and we could even observe a (small) learning curve because new inhabitants mostly were briefed by their neighbours shortly after they had moved in.
So: Go ahead, Aussie ISPs!
That's definitely the way to go - and to further sysadmin appreciation, but that's a different piece of.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897018</id>
	<title>Something is to be done</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1264418820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Business websites are being attacked. We do not know if we work tomorrow or stop because some hooligan may decide DDoS us without any apparent reason.</p><p>It is not amusing. Businesses lose millions upon millions because of these cyber pranks. Let alone spam which causes years of lost working time.</p><p>I am for these and other new measures to fight bot-nets and spam. I would also suggest that the malware bot-nets and spam are recognized by UN ITU (International Communication Union) as a crime against humanity.</p><p>The secrete services, the Hague international court of justice, state police and other bodies should be mobilized to fight this new threat to our civilization.</p><p>The world is more and more relies on computers and networks. Bot-nets and spam are weapons of mass distraction in this new world. They already cost billions to the economy and are major contributor to the economical crisis.</p><p>The governments and the international community are to wake up and do something against this new threat in a concerted global effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Business websites are being attacked .
We do not know if we work tomorrow or stop because some hooligan may decide DDoS us without any apparent reason.It is not amusing .
Businesses lose millions upon millions because of these cyber pranks .
Let alone spam which causes years of lost working time.I am for these and other new measures to fight bot-nets and spam .
I would also suggest that the malware bot-nets and spam are recognized by UN ITU ( International Communication Union ) as a crime against humanity.The secrete services , the Hague international court of justice , state police and other bodies should be mobilized to fight this new threat to our civilization.The world is more and more relies on computers and networks .
Bot-nets and spam are weapons of mass distraction in this new world .
They already cost billions to the economy and are major contributor to the economical crisis.The governments and the international community are to wake up and do something against this new threat in a concerted global effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Business websites are being attacked.
We do not know if we work tomorrow or stop because some hooligan may decide DDoS us without any apparent reason.It is not amusing.
Businesses lose millions upon millions because of these cyber pranks.
Let alone spam which causes years of lost working time.I am for these and other new measures to fight bot-nets and spam.
I would also suggest that the malware bot-nets and spam are recognized by UN ITU (International Communication Union) as a crime against humanity.The secrete services, the Hague international court of justice, state police and other bodies should be mobilized to fight this new threat to our civilization.The world is more and more relies on computers and networks.
Bot-nets and spam are weapons of mass distraction in this new world.
They already cost billions to the economy and are major contributor to the economical crisis.The governments and the international community are to wake up and do something against this new threat in a concerted global effort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891472</id>
	<title>Re:What if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264439940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doens't matter, if you connect to IRC you are a botnet.  Everyone knows that only zombies use IRC chat anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It doens't matter , if you connect to IRC you are a botnet .
Everyone knows that only zombies use IRC chat anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doens't matter, if you connect to IRC you are a botnet.
Everyone knows that only zombies use IRC chat anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890940</id>
	<title>Australia - The Most Racist Country on the Planet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264438320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google "Australia Racism". The attack any non-whites, and by attack I don't mean punch or shoot. No sir, the Australians like it Taliban style, cutting living<br>humans with knives. They like to see blood when they kill.</p><p>Here's another URL:<br>http://news.google.ca/news?oe=utf-8&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;q=australia\%20racist&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;sa=N&amp;hl=en&amp;tab=wn</p><p>So I am not surprised that their ISPs are acting in a fascist manner.</p><p>Just avoid the crappy place<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... stay away from racist Australia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google " Australia Racism " .
The attack any non-whites , and by attack I do n't mean punch or shoot .
No sir , the Australians like it Taliban style , cutting livinghumans with knives .
They like to see blood when they kill.Here 's another URL : http : //news.google.ca/news ? oe = utf-8&amp;rls = org.mozilla : en-US : official&amp;client = firefox-a&amp;q = australia \ % 20racist&amp;um = 1&amp;ie = UTF-8&amp;sa = N&amp;hl = en&amp;tab = wnSo I am not surprised that their ISPs are acting in a fascist manner.Just avoid the crappy place ... stay away from racist Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google "Australia Racism".
The attack any non-whites, and by attack I don't mean punch or shoot.
No sir, the Australians like it Taliban style, cutting livinghumans with knives.
They like to see blood when they kill.Here's another URL:http://news.google.ca/news?oe=utf-8&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;q=australia\%20racist&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;sa=N&amp;hl=en&amp;tab=wnSo I am not surprised that their ISPs are acting in a fascist manner.Just avoid the crappy place ... stay away from racist Australia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892412</id>
	<title>Good idea if implemented properly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264443120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>ISPs should be disconnecting zombied machines.  The catch is they need a test which catches most zombie machines while not catching any non-zombies, and most ISPs are neither competent enough nor interested enough to do so.  If their procedure has systemic problems which disconnects non-zombies, then the cure is worse than the disease.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs should be disconnecting zombied machines .
The catch is they need a test which catches most zombie machines while not catching any non-zombies , and most ISPs are neither competent enough nor interested enough to do so .
If their procedure has systemic problems which disconnects non-zombies , then the cure is worse than the disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs should be disconnecting zombied machines.
The catch is they need a test which catches most zombie machines while not catching any non-zombies, and most ISPs are neither competent enough nor interested enough to do so.
If their procedure has systemic problems which disconnects non-zombies, then the cure is worse than the disease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892162</id>
	<title>Re:Open invite to hackers: Come steal our stuff!!</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1264442280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, use the telephone, or Certified letter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , use the telephone , or Certified letter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, use the telephone, or Certified letter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894786</id>
	<title>Provable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264410180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of people on this thread wondering how malware infection would be provable.  Note that they said "part of a bot net".  It's not too hard to tell if someone's computer is sending out floods of information to a specific site, and it's not too hard for an ISP to find out if that particular site is currently reporting that it's under DDoS attack.  If there are many other computers sending out nearly identical floods of information to the same host, it's not too hard to spot a candidate.</p><p>If all attempts to contact the customer fail, then it may be necessary to cut them off -- if nothing else, to get their attention.  If I were trying to upload a massive movie to whatever website, and I couldn't get through, I might be trying to get hold of my ISP or the site in question, not the other way around.</p><p>But if I'm on vacation in Key Largo (I wish), and my computer is spewing out tons of information, then something is wrong, and I'd rather my computer get cut off from the internet than have it be part of a DDoS attack.</p><p>Another way to determine if a host is part of a bot net is to see if they are connected to IRC for long periods of time, and if they are connected to a channel that is known to be a C&amp;CC for a botnet operator.  Symantec and Kaspersky are uncovering these on a daily basis.  I imagine a lot of the other AV vendors are, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of people on this thread wondering how malware infection would be provable .
Note that they said " part of a bot net " .
It 's not too hard to tell if someone 's computer is sending out floods of information to a specific site , and it 's not too hard for an ISP to find out if that particular site is currently reporting that it 's under DDoS attack .
If there are many other computers sending out nearly identical floods of information to the same host , it 's not too hard to spot a candidate.If all attempts to contact the customer fail , then it may be necessary to cut them off -- if nothing else , to get their attention .
If I were trying to upload a massive movie to whatever website , and I could n't get through , I might be trying to get hold of my ISP or the site in question , not the other way around.But if I 'm on vacation in Key Largo ( I wish ) , and my computer is spewing out tons of information , then something is wrong , and I 'd rather my computer get cut off from the internet than have it be part of a DDoS attack.Another way to determine if a host is part of a bot net is to see if they are connected to IRC for long periods of time , and if they are connected to a channel that is known to be a C&amp;CC for a botnet operator .
Symantec and Kaspersky are uncovering these on a daily basis .
I imagine a lot of the other AV vendors are , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of people on this thread wondering how malware infection would be provable.
Note that they said "part of a bot net".
It's not too hard to tell if someone's computer is sending out floods of information to a specific site, and it's not too hard for an ISP to find out if that particular site is currently reporting that it's under DDoS attack.
If there are many other computers sending out nearly identical floods of information to the same host, it's not too hard to spot a candidate.If all attempts to contact the customer fail, then it may be necessary to cut them off -- if nothing else, to get their attention.
If I were trying to upload a massive movie to whatever website, and I couldn't get through, I might be trying to get hold of my ISP or the site in question, not the other way around.But if I'm on vacation in Key Largo (I wish), and my computer is spewing out tons of information, then something is wrong, and I'd rather my computer get cut off from the internet than have it be part of a DDoS attack.Another way to determine if a host is part of a bot net is to see if they are connected to IRC for long periods of time, and if they are connected to a channel that is known to be a C&amp;CC for a botnet operator.
Symantec and Kaspersky are uncovering these on a daily basis.
I imagine a lot of the other AV vendors are, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896104</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; If you're too stupid to acknowledge this and take responsibility for fixing it, or just plain don't care, I'd much rather see you off the internet and out of my Inbox.</p><p>The real problem is grandma with her slow-running computer has no idea how to fix it. Maybe the isp can make her aware of the problem, but fix it? What do you suggest the isp does in those cases?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; If you 're too stupid to acknowledge this and take responsibility for fixing it , or just plain do n't care , I 'd much rather see you off the internet and out of my Inbox.The real problem is grandma with her slow-running computer has no idea how to fix it .
Maybe the isp can make her aware of the problem , but fix it ?
What do you suggest the isp does in those cases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; If you're too stupid to acknowledge this and take responsibility for fixing it, or just plain don't care, I'd much rather see you off the internet and out of my Inbox.The real problem is grandma with her slow-running computer has no idea how to fix it.
Maybe the isp can make her aware of the problem, but fix it?
What do you suggest the isp does in those cases?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890814</id>
	<title>P2P</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264437900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will be the next "botnet" they'll fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will be the next " botnet " they 'll fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will be the next "botnet" they'll fix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894506</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1264452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My ISP (Clearwire, fwiw) has on several occasions throttled me down to about 5 KB/s until I call and ask what's up. I get a level 1 tech who reads me the entire "have you run your antivirus software lately, do you leave your computer on all the time, etc." script before I can tell him that I run os x on a laptop that spends most of its time at work.</p><p>The call immediately goes up the chain, I have to explain myself again, I get put on hold for a minute or two, and then the problem is mysteriously solved. All without ever admitting that they had something to do with it.</p><p>And I don't use any P2P/torrent/limewire software. I do download lots of legitimate software, streaming video, and music (from amazon or itunes). I don't run any internet-facing servers- in fact, my firewall is locked down as far as it can be without causing problems for myself, and every nonessential service and port is closed. My wireless network uses WPA2 and MAC filtering.</p><p>All that, and I was identified several times as a zombie. If I was one of these customers getting cut off in Australia, I'd raise holy hell. Since it has only happened to me a few times (and temporarily) with Clearwire, the hell I raise consists merely of telling everyone at every chance that comes up that Clearwire will screw you over without a second thought. And that I'm on an oversold network segment that gets unusable around dinner time, and that a simple nmap sweep shows me all my network neighbors running unpatched windows boxes.</p><p>I just quit smoking so I'm sorry if I come off as angry.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ISP ( Clearwire , fwiw ) has on several occasions throttled me down to about 5 KB/s until I call and ask what 's up .
I get a level 1 tech who reads me the entire " have you run your antivirus software lately , do you leave your computer on all the time , etc .
" script before I can tell him that I run os x on a laptop that spends most of its time at work.The call immediately goes up the chain , I have to explain myself again , I get put on hold for a minute or two , and then the problem is mysteriously solved .
All without ever admitting that they had something to do with it.And I do n't use any P2P/torrent/limewire software .
I do download lots of legitimate software , streaming video , and music ( from amazon or itunes ) .
I do n't run any internet-facing servers- in fact , my firewall is locked down as far as it can be without causing problems for myself , and every nonessential service and port is closed .
My wireless network uses WPA2 and MAC filtering.All that , and I was identified several times as a zombie .
If I was one of these customers getting cut off in Australia , I 'd raise holy hell .
Since it has only happened to me a few times ( and temporarily ) with Clearwire , the hell I raise consists merely of telling everyone at every chance that comes up that Clearwire will screw you over without a second thought .
And that I 'm on an oversold network segment that gets unusable around dinner time , and that a simple nmap sweep shows me all my network neighbors running unpatched windows boxes.I just quit smoking so I 'm sorry if I come off as angry.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ISP (Clearwire, fwiw) has on several occasions throttled me down to about 5 KB/s until I call and ask what's up.
I get a level 1 tech who reads me the entire "have you run your antivirus software lately, do you leave your computer on all the time, etc.
" script before I can tell him that I run os x on a laptop that spends most of its time at work.The call immediately goes up the chain, I have to explain myself again, I get put on hold for a minute or two, and then the problem is mysteriously solved.
All without ever admitting that they had something to do with it.And I don't use any P2P/torrent/limewire software.
I do download lots of legitimate software, streaming video, and music (from amazon or itunes).
I don't run any internet-facing servers- in fact, my firewall is locked down as far as it can be without causing problems for myself, and every nonessential service and port is closed.
My wireless network uses WPA2 and MAC filtering.All that, and I was identified several times as a zombie.
If I was one of these customers getting cut off in Australia, I'd raise holy hell.
Since it has only happened to me a few times (and temporarily) with Clearwire, the hell I raise consists merely of telling everyone at every chance that comes up that Clearwire will screw you over without a second thought.
And that I'm on an oversold network segment that gets unusable around dinner time, and that a simple nmap sweep shows me all my network neighbors running unpatched windows boxes.I just quit smoking so I'm sorry if I come off as angry.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897800</id>
	<title>Re:Give a discount to those running clean systems.</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1264422840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're opening pandora's box by endorsing OS discrimmination.  The equation will look like:</p><p>OpenBSD Price =<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - 20\% discount for no viruses<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; + 200\% surcharge for probably hosting their own server<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; + 200\% surcharge for being a smartass to tech support</p><p>= 480\% of Windows price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're opening pandora 's box by endorsing OS discrimmination .
The equation will look like : OpenBSD Price =     - 20 \ % discount for no viruses     + 200 \ % surcharge for probably hosting their own server     + 200 \ % surcharge for being a smartass to tech support = 480 \ % of Windows price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're opening pandora's box by endorsing OS discrimmination.
The equation will look like:OpenBSD Price =
    - 20\% discount for no viruses
    + 200\% surcharge for probably hosting their own server
    + 200\% surcharge for being a smartass to tech support= 480\% of Windows price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890818</id>
	<title>Stop tinkering with things they don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264437900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Austrailia,</p><p>Quit screwing around with the internet. The rest of the world is rather fond of you, but this is really trying our patience. If maybe you had STARTED with this botnet thing we'd respect what you're trying to do, but no. You started with "protecting the children" so kiss off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Austrailia,Quit screwing around with the internet .
The rest of the world is rather fond of you , but this is really trying our patience .
If maybe you had STARTED with this botnet thing we 'd respect what you 're trying to do , but no .
You started with " protecting the children " so kiss off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Austrailia,Quit screwing around with the internet.
The rest of the world is rather fond of you, but this is really trying our patience.
If maybe you had STARTED with this botnet thing we'd respect what you're trying to do, but no.
You started with "protecting the children" so kiss off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30895648</id>
	<title>Bad Car Analogy Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like people who drive around with bad bakes because a rat chewed on the hoses. Obliviously the brake damage is not their fault and they don't know how-to fix them. So they need to hire a professional but anyone hurt by driving the car with bad brakes is the fault of the owner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like people who drive around with bad bakes because a rat chewed on the hoses .
Obliviously the brake damage is not their fault and they do n't know how-to fix them .
So they need to hire a professional but anyone hurt by driving the car with bad brakes is the fault of the owner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like people who drive around with bad bakes because a rat chewed on the hoses.
Obliviously the brake damage is not their fault and they don't know how-to fix them.
So they need to hire a professional but anyone hurt by driving the car with bad brakes is the fault of the owner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896304</id>
	<title>Re:Free botnet removal support?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work at an ISP and this is exactly how we do it.<br>If we get alot complaints about spam or botnet activity from a ip we put them in own vlan giving them access only to some antivirus sites. Very effective in getting the user to do something about it. Otherwise I'm sure that at least 60\% of the users wouldn't even care, or wouldnt know how to fix it.</p><p>Same if they don't pay the bills. Then they only get access to the most popular banks online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work at an ISP and this is exactly how we do it.If we get alot complaints about spam or botnet activity from a ip we put them in own vlan giving them access only to some antivirus sites .
Very effective in getting the user to do something about it .
Otherwise I 'm sure that at least 60 \ % of the users would n't even care , or wouldnt know how to fix it.Same if they do n't pay the bills .
Then they only get access to the most popular banks online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work at an ISP and this is exactly how we do it.If we get alot complaints about spam or botnet activity from a ip we put them in own vlan giving them access only to some antivirus sites.
Very effective in getting the user to do something about it.
Otherwise I'm sure that at least 60\% of the users wouldn't even care, or wouldnt know how to fix it.Same if they don't pay the bills.
Then they only get access to the most popular banks online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891736</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1264440780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not able to fix my car and yet the governement wants me to have things safe for others. I doubt that I can use that as an excuse driving around in a car that is not up to the standard that they demand.<br>I believe there is a difference between <b>fixing it</b> and <b>fixing it yourself</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not able to fix my car and yet the governement wants me to have things safe for others .
I doubt that I can use that as an excuse driving around in a car that is not up to the standard that they demand.I believe there is a difference between fixing it and fixing it yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not able to fix my car and yet the governement wants me to have things safe for others.
I doubt that I can use that as an excuse driving around in a car that is not up to the standard that they demand.I believe there is a difference between fixing it and fixing it yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893260</id>
	<title>They need to disconnect them here too ... !!!</title>
	<author>Brigadier</author>
	<datestamp>1264446720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bot net crap has to stop, I wish they would do that here. Disconne.....{#`\%${\%&amp;`+'${`\%&amp;NO CARRIER")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bot net crap has to stop , I wish they would do that here .
Disconne..... { # ` \ % $ { \ % &amp; ` + ' $ { ` \ % &amp;NO CARRIER " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bot net crap has to stop, I wish they would do that here.
Disconne.....{#`\%${\%&amp;`+'${`\%&amp;NO CARRIER")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891502</id>
	<title>mod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">counterpart, counterpart, election to the that FreeBSD is</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>counterpart , counterpart , election to the that FreeBSD is [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>counterpart, counterpart, election to the that FreeBSD is [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893510</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1264447680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't really matter what you want if your ignorance is leading to these kinds of problems.</p><p>And bandwidth isn't a very good indicator since each individual bot doesn't have to actually send all that much info.</p><p>Personally I think there are certain patterns that could be gleaned from the traffic to help determine if there is a problem.  Hundreds of failed connections or invalid packets per second, for instance.</p><p>Do I want to give the power of choice to the ISP?  Not really, but who else is able to do it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't really matter what you want if your ignorance is leading to these kinds of problems.And bandwidth is n't a very good indicator since each individual bot does n't have to actually send all that much info.Personally I think there are certain patterns that could be gleaned from the traffic to help determine if there is a problem .
Hundreds of failed connections or invalid packets per second , for instance.Do I want to give the power of choice to the ISP ?
Not really , but who else is able to do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't really matter what you want if your ignorance is leading to these kinds of problems.And bandwidth isn't a very good indicator since each individual bot doesn't have to actually send all that much info.Personally I think there are certain patterns that could be gleaned from the traffic to help determine if there is a problem.
Hundreds of failed connections or invalid packets per second, for instance.Do I want to give the power of choice to the ISP?
Not really, but who else is able to do it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890846</id>
	<title>Free botnet removal support?</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1264437960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its not like everyone knows how to (and in some cases cannot afford to hire someone to) remove botnets from their machine.  I hope the ISPs will provide this kind of support as part of standard service before they consider disconnecting users...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not like everyone knows how to ( and in some cases can not afford to hire someone to ) remove botnets from their machine .
I hope the ISPs will provide this kind of support as part of standard service before they consider disconnecting users.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not like everyone knows how to (and in some cases cannot afford to hire someone to) remove botnets from their machine.
I hope the ISPs will provide this kind of support as part of standard service before they consider disconnecting users...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30900126</id>
	<title>Re:Stop tinkering with things they don't understan</title>
	<author>haapi</author>
	<datestamp>1264439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.</p><p>Though, on the other side of the argument, I've always been amazed that the RIAA has been able to make IP address claims stick, when ISPs can't even vouch that a site is a 'botsite or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.Though , on the other side of the argument , I 've always been amazed that the RIAA has been able to make IP address claims stick , when ISPs ca n't even vouch that a site is a 'botsite or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.Though, on the other side of the argument, I've always been amazed that the RIAA has been able to make IP address claims stick, when ISPs can't even vouch that a site is a 'botsite or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892654</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264443840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s called &ldquo;natural selection&rdquo;. It&rsquo;s <em>supposed</em> to work that way.<br>Either you wise up, or you die. Simple as that. Look it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s called    natural selection    .
It    s supposed to work that way.Either you wise up , or you die .
Simple as that .
Look it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s called “natural selection”.
It’s supposed to work that way.Either you wise up, or you die.
Simple as that.
Look it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891778</id>
	<title>DNS redirect?</title>
	<author>Nukenbar</author>
	<datestamp>1264440900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I usually hate messing with a protocol, but this sounds like a good use of a DNS redirect.  When a user is deemed infected by whatever measure they decide, have the first web-page that the user brings up a re-direct to an ISP warning page with info on how to cure the problem.</p><p>I suppose if the user refuses to do anything about it you could cut him off after a month or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I usually hate messing with a protocol , but this sounds like a good use of a DNS redirect .
When a user is deemed infected by whatever measure they decide , have the first web-page that the user brings up a re-direct to an ISP warning page with info on how to cure the problem.I suppose if the user refuses to do anything about it you could cut him off after a month or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I usually hate messing with a protocol, but this sounds like a good use of a DNS redirect.
When a user is deemed infected by whatever measure they decide, have the first web-page that the user brings up a re-direct to an ISP warning page with info on how to cure the problem.I suppose if the user refuses to do anything about it you could cut him off after a month or so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</id>
	<title>Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>ATestR</author>
	<datestamp>1264438080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>if the user refuses to fix the problem</i> </p><p>The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to "fix the problem".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if the user refuses to fix the problem The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to " fix the problem " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> if the user refuses to fix the problem The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to "fix the problem".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891172</id>
	<title>Sad, isn't it?</title>
	<author>bbbaldie</author>
	<datestamp>1264439160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buy a computer and/or a supposedly secure operating system, and then, unless the customer proactively protects against security breaches, they won't be allowed on the internet.

Pardon me, but isn't protection against security breaches the OPERATING SYSTEM'S JOB???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a computer and/or a supposedly secure operating system , and then , unless the customer proactively protects against security breaches , they wo n't be allowed on the internet .
Pardon me , but is n't protection against security breaches the OPERATING SYSTEM 'S JOB ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy a computer and/or a supposedly secure operating system, and then, unless the customer proactively protects against security breaches, they won't be allowed on the internet.
Pardon me, but isn't protection against security breaches the OPERATING SYSTEM'S JOB??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30895610</id>
	<title>A more effective solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People should start thinking "outside the box" with this sort of problem.<br>
It has been proven by numerous studies that unpatched computers and unqualified home users running cheap homebrew servers are the real culprits with the botnet dilema hence the best solution would be that every computer that connects to the internet should pass a validation check to ensure they have the latest most up to date security patches. In order to do this Microsoft could, for a nominal monthly fee, assist ISPs with setting up <b>G</b>enuine <b>O</b>nline <b>T</b>ransmission <b>C</b>ontrol <b>H</b>igh <b>A</b>vailability software. Any computer that does not have the latest update on their computer will be blocked.<br>
Each computer that requires GOTCHA authentication will have a small monthly fee collected by GOTCHA ISPs on behalf of Microsoft.
<br>
This approach is a three dimensional solution to the problem:<br>

1. This ensures all internet users can feel safe knowing that all other internet users have been passed as a GOTCHA customer.
<br>
2. All highly dangerous homebrew server operating systems will be blocked from the internet as only safe Microsoft operating systems will be able to pass the rigorous authentication -  it is important to emphasize <b>this will affect all terrorists running their own servers.</b> <br>
3. The flow of internet traffic will be more orderly and kept at a safe speed to discourage <b>illegal downloaders of child pornography.</b>
<br> <br> <br>
Anyone that cares about the online safety of their children and loved ones should tell their politicians and friends, there is only one solution - tell them <b>Microsoft Gotcha!</b> <br>
<br>P.S. Mr Balmer, GOTCHA is my IP but for a nominal monthly fee.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>People should start thinking " outside the box " with this sort of problem .
It has been proven by numerous studies that unpatched computers and unqualified home users running cheap homebrew servers are the real culprits with the botnet dilema hence the best solution would be that every computer that connects to the internet should pass a validation check to ensure they have the latest most up to date security patches .
In order to do this Microsoft could , for a nominal monthly fee , assist ISPs with setting up Genuine Online Transmission Control High Availability software .
Any computer that does not have the latest update on their computer will be blocked .
Each computer that requires GOTCHA authentication will have a small monthly fee collected by GOTCHA ISPs on behalf of Microsoft .
This approach is a three dimensional solution to the problem : 1 .
This ensures all internet users can feel safe knowing that all other internet users have been passed as a GOTCHA customer .
2. All highly dangerous homebrew server operating systems will be blocked from the internet as only safe Microsoft operating systems will be able to pass the rigorous authentication - it is important to emphasize this will affect all terrorists running their own servers .
3. The flow of internet traffic will be more orderly and kept at a safe speed to discourage illegal downloaders of child pornography .
Anyone that cares about the online safety of their children and loved ones should tell their politicians and friends , there is only one solution - tell them Microsoft Gotcha !
P.S. Mr Balmer , GOTCHA is my IP but for a nominal monthly fee.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People should start thinking "outside the box" with this sort of problem.
It has been proven by numerous studies that unpatched computers and unqualified home users running cheap homebrew servers are the real culprits with the botnet dilema hence the best solution would be that every computer that connects to the internet should pass a validation check to ensure they have the latest most up to date security patches.
In order to do this Microsoft could, for a nominal monthly fee, assist ISPs with setting up Genuine Online Transmission Control High Availability software.
Any computer that does not have the latest update on their computer will be blocked.
Each computer that requires GOTCHA authentication will have a small monthly fee collected by GOTCHA ISPs on behalf of Microsoft.
This approach is a three dimensional solution to the problem:

1.
This ensures all internet users can feel safe knowing that all other internet users have been passed as a GOTCHA customer.
2. All highly dangerous homebrew server operating systems will be blocked from the internet as only safe Microsoft operating systems will be able to pass the rigorous authentication -  it is important to emphasize this will affect all terrorists running their own servers.
3. The flow of internet traffic will be more orderly and kept at a safe speed to discourage illegal downloaders of child pornography.
Anyone that cares about the online safety of their children and loved ones should tell their politicians and friends, there is only one solution - tell them Microsoft Gotcha!
P.S. Mr Balmer, GOTCHA is my IP but for a nominal monthly fee.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896056</id>
	<title>Re:Free botnet removal support?</title>
	<author>etnoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264415220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Redirect any request from those IPs to a web page that explain the situation and why that computer shouldnt be in the net for their own good, and have as direct download most typical cleaning and other essential at that stage applications</p></div><p>So how would this look any different to the very web pages we tell our parents and aunties *not* to trust? I'm talking about those "CLICK HERE FOR FREE COMPUTER SCAN" and "DOWNLOAD THIS TO REMOVE VIRUSES" kind of pages...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Redirect any request from those IPs to a web page that explain the situation and why that computer shouldnt be in the net for their own good , and have as direct download most typical cleaning and other essential at that stage applicationsSo how would this look any different to the very web pages we tell our parents and aunties * not * to trust ?
I 'm talking about those " CLICK HERE FOR FREE COMPUTER SCAN " and " DOWNLOAD THIS TO REMOVE VIRUSES " kind of pages.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Redirect any request from those IPs to a web page that explain the situation and why that computer shouldnt be in the net for their own good, and have as direct download most typical cleaning and other essential at that stage applicationsSo how would this look any different to the very web pages we tell our parents and aunties *not* to trust?
I'm talking about those "CLICK HERE FOR FREE COMPUTER SCAN" and "DOWNLOAD THIS TO REMOVE VIRUSES" kind of pages...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30899210</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd rather not have my ISP decide what is a "virus" or "inappropriate communications" thank you. If the users are consuming too much bandwidth then disconnect them on those grounds, but please don't set this precedent.</p></div><p>This already exists. (you can rind the relevant RFC's yourself, I'm lazy)</p><p>1. All ISP's should have an email address of "abuse@isp.com"<br>2. Any users, IP's, etc. coming from that ISP should be reported to the abuse address.<br>3. The ISP should take appropriate action against the user.<br>4. If the user refuses to clean up their machine, or are a chronic offender the ISP should terminate their account.</p><p>See how easy that is? All you have to do is get ISP's to do what they are already supposed to be doing, instead of just filtering their abuse address into the trash can.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather not have my ISP decide what is a " virus " or " inappropriate communications " thank you .
If the users are consuming too much bandwidth then disconnect them on those grounds , but please do n't set this precedent.This already exists .
( you can rind the relevant RFC 's yourself , I 'm lazy ) 1 .
All ISP 's should have an email address of " abuse @ isp.com " 2 .
Any users , IP 's , etc .
coming from that ISP should be reported to the abuse address.3 .
The ISP should take appropriate action against the user.4 .
If the user refuses to clean up their machine , or are a chronic offender the ISP should terminate their account.See how easy that is ?
All you have to do is get ISP 's to do what they are already supposed to be doing , instead of just filtering their abuse address into the trash can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather not have my ISP decide what is a "virus" or "inappropriate communications" thank you.
If the users are consuming too much bandwidth then disconnect them on those grounds, but please don't set this precedent.This already exists.
(you can rind the relevant RFC's yourself, I'm lazy)1.
All ISP's should have an email address of "abuse@isp.com"2.
Any users, IP's, etc.
coming from that ISP should be reported to the abuse address.3.
The ISP should take appropriate action against the user.4.
If the user refuses to clean up their machine, or are a chronic offender the ISP should terminate their account.See how easy that is?
All you have to do is get ISP's to do what they are already supposed to be doing, instead of just filtering their abuse address into the trash can.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30913038</id>
	<title>Why is this marked insightful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264520640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sounds like another case of <b>politicians</b> regulating something they don't understand.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Umm...<br> <br>

This is being pushed by ISP's via the Internet Industry Association (IIA). As in no polly is actually pushing this, it's coming from the private ISP industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like another case of politicians regulating something they do n't understand .
Umm.. . This is being pushed by ISP 's via the Internet Industry Association ( IIA ) .
As in no polly is actually pushing this , it 's coming from the private ISP industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like another case of politicians regulating something they don't understand.
Umm... 

This is being pushed by ISP's via the Internet Industry Association (IIA).
As in no polly is actually pushing this, it's coming from the private ISP industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890994</id>
	<title>The 'why' of everything political</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264438500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft's lobby wont allow this solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's lobby wont allow this solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's lobby wont allow this solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890894</id>
	<title>Re:why not directly disconnect every Windows machi</title>
	<author>JasonBee</author>
	<datestamp>1264438140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough that's close enough to a decent solution to work.</p><p>How about we START with that, and work our way back to allowing pre-vetted workstations back onto the interwebs. I like the idea of running a simple system checking script though a web browser based internet portal the same way you must login to a hotspot to gain access to the internet.</p><p>Make that kind of access a precondition for users who were deemed to be hosting malware/bots and go from there. Once confirmed as clean the portal requirement disappears. The portal software will have to be hosted by a non-profit with government oversight for obvious reasons.</p><p>Of course I'm OK if that software isn't particularly Mac compatible<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough that 's close enough to a decent solution to work.How about we START with that , and work our way back to allowing pre-vetted workstations back onto the interwebs .
I like the idea of running a simple system checking script though a web browser based internet portal the same way you must login to a hotspot to gain access to the internet.Make that kind of access a precondition for users who were deemed to be hosting malware/bots and go from there .
Once confirmed as clean the portal requirement disappears .
The portal software will have to be hosted by a non-profit with government oversight for obvious reasons.Of course I 'm OK if that software is n't particularly Mac compatible ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough that's close enough to a decent solution to work.How about we START with that, and work our way back to allowing pre-vetted workstations back onto the interwebs.
I like the idea of running a simple system checking script though a web browser based internet portal the same way you must login to a hotspot to gain access to the internet.Make that kind of access a precondition for users who were deemed to be hosting malware/bots and go from there.
Once confirmed as clean the portal requirement disappears.
The portal software will have to be hosted by a non-profit with government oversight for obvious reasons.Of course I'm OK if that software isn't particularly Mac compatible ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098</id>
	<title>Give a discount to those running clean systems.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264438920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't need to disconnect bad users. They should just give a discount to users who are running secure operating systems that are more resilient to malware infections than Windows is.</p><p>For example, give OpenBSD users a 50\% discount, since it's quite unlikely that their system will ever get infected or compromised. The same can probably be done for users using Solaris, NetBSD, FreeBSD and commercial UNIXes.</p><p>Linux and Mac OS X are more widely used than the aforementioned systems, so the chance of them getting compromised is greater, although still virtually non-existent. Give such users a 25\% discount.</p><p>Assume that the latest version of Windows is somewhat immune. Give Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 users no discount. That is, they pay the base rate.</p><p>Assume that older versions of Windows have been compromised. Give them a negative discount. A Windows XP user pays an extra 25\%. A Windows 9x user pays 50\% more.</p><p>Nobody needs to get disconnected this way. Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they're not willingly doing is completely absurd, and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't need to disconnect bad users .
They should just give a discount to users who are running secure operating systems that are more resilient to malware infections than Windows is.For example , give OpenBSD users a 50 \ % discount , since it 's quite unlikely that their system will ever get infected or compromised .
The same can probably be done for users using Solaris , NetBSD , FreeBSD and commercial UNIXes.Linux and Mac OS X are more widely used than the aforementioned systems , so the chance of them getting compromised is greater , although still virtually non-existent .
Give such users a 25 \ % discount.Assume that the latest version of Windows is somewhat immune .
Give Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 users no discount .
That is , they pay the base rate.Assume that older versions of Windows have been compromised .
Give them a negative discount .
A Windows XP user pays an extra 25 \ % .
A Windows 9x user pays 50 \ % more.Nobody needs to get disconnected this way .
Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they 're not willingly doing is completely absurd , and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't need to disconnect bad users.
They should just give a discount to users who are running secure operating systems that are more resilient to malware infections than Windows is.For example, give OpenBSD users a 50\% discount, since it's quite unlikely that their system will ever get infected or compromised.
The same can probably be done for users using Solaris, NetBSD, FreeBSD and commercial UNIXes.Linux and Mac OS X are more widely used than the aforementioned systems, so the chance of them getting compromised is greater, although still virtually non-existent.
Give such users a 25\% discount.Assume that the latest version of Windows is somewhat immune.
Give Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 users no discount.
That is, they pay the base rate.Assume that older versions of Windows have been compromised.
Give them a negative discount.
A Windows XP user pays an extra 25\%.
A Windows 9x user pays 50\% more.Nobody needs to get disconnected this way.
Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they're not willingly doing is completely absurd, and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816</id>
	<title>Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264437900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather not have my ISP decide what is a "virus" or "inappropriate communications" thank you. If the users are consuming too much bandwidth then disconnect them on those grounds, but please don't set this precedent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather not have my ISP decide what is a " virus " or " inappropriate communications " thank you .
If the users are consuming too much bandwidth then disconnect them on those grounds , but please do n't set this precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather not have my ISP decide what is a "virus" or "inappropriate communications" thank you.
If the users are consuming too much bandwidth then disconnect them on those grounds, but please don't set this precedent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893532</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1264447740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That said, I have no sympathy for someone that knows their computer has a problem that's causing other people grief.</p> </div><p>What about people who do not care enough to find out? That is most people. They do not know, because they do not care.</p><p>My solution would be to allow victims to sue anyone who is negligent or the consequences. I think making everyone whose machine is in a botnet jointly and severally liable for all damage would be excessive, but each of them should face a liability big enough to be worth suing over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , I have no sympathy for someone that knows their computer has a problem that 's causing other people grief .
What about people who do not care enough to find out ?
That is most people .
They do not know , because they do not care.My solution would be to allow victims to sue anyone who is negligent or the consequences .
I think making everyone whose machine is in a botnet jointly and severally liable for all damage would be excessive , but each of them should face a liability big enough to be worth suing over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, I have no sympathy for someone that knows their computer has a problem that's causing other people grief.
What about people who do not care enough to find out?
That is most people.
They do not know, because they do not care.My solution would be to allow victims to sue anyone who is negligent or the consequences.
I think making everyone whose machine is in a botnet jointly and severally liable for all damage would be excessive, but each of them should face a liability big enough to be worth suing over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891674</id>
	<title>Criteria</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Botnet - Collection of computers using large amount of bandwidth.
<br>
Largest Botnet - BitTorrent
<br>
ISP - "Job's a good 'un lads, let's go home."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Botnet - Collection of computers using large amount of bandwidth .
Largest Botnet - BitTorrent ISP - " Job 's a good 'un lads , let 's go home .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Botnet - Collection of computers using large amount of bandwidth.
Largest Botnet - BitTorrent

ISP - "Job's a good 'un lads, let's go home.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892568</id>
	<title>Re:Give a discount to those running clean systems.</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1264443540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet we take away the license of people that drive in an irresponsible fashion. If you're not willing to take responsibility for your actions, or are unable to, then there needs to be some way of hammering home the damage that you're doing to the group. Just like those idiots that endanger everybody else by refusing to get vaccinated against serious illnesses.<br> <br>

In this case, sure it's not a life or death decision, but spam, phishing, malware, child porn, and other nastiness does ruin lives. Slowing the speed down to dial up, and possibly restricting the user from accessing anything other than tech support, would do wonders for cutting down on the massive waste of bandwidth. A couple years back malware was using 2/3 of the bandwidth, I shudder to think  what it is now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet we take away the license of people that drive in an irresponsible fashion .
If you 're not willing to take responsibility for your actions , or are unable to , then there needs to be some way of hammering home the damage that you 're doing to the group .
Just like those idiots that endanger everybody else by refusing to get vaccinated against serious illnesses .
In this case , sure it 's not a life or death decision , but spam , phishing , malware , child porn , and other nastiness does ruin lives .
Slowing the speed down to dial up , and possibly restricting the user from accessing anything other than tech support , would do wonders for cutting down on the massive waste of bandwidth .
A couple years back malware was using 2/3 of the bandwidth , I shudder to think what it is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet we take away the license of people that drive in an irresponsible fashion.
If you're not willing to take responsibility for your actions, or are unable to, then there needs to be some way of hammering home the damage that you're doing to the group.
Just like those idiots that endanger everybody else by refusing to get vaccinated against serious illnesses.
In this case, sure it's not a life or death decision, but spam, phishing, malware, child porn, and other nastiness does ruin lives.
Slowing the speed down to dial up, and possibly restricting the user from accessing anything other than tech support, would do wonders for cutting down on the massive waste of bandwidth.
A couple years back malware was using 2/3 of the bandwidth, I shudder to think  what it is now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894606</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, isn't it?</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1264452720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't think of an OS that can tell the difference between skype spraying bit all over the internet versus a spam mailer spraying bits all over the internet. In both cases, the user probably clicked something (skype.exe or boobs.jpg.exe), and clicked "OK" when the OS asked if they were sure. At that point the reins are in the hands of the user.</p><p>You can put a HUD, anti-lock brakes, cornering headlights, parking sonar, all-weather tires, and wrap-around cabin airbags in a car, but a stupid user will crash it just the same. It's not the car's fault that the user wanted to drive down an icy mountain road with hairpin turns at 60 mph at 3a.m. in a blizzard. Which- in my experience doing ISP tech support and working with people in various office environments- is EXACTLY what many users want to do.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of an OS that can tell the difference between skype spraying bit all over the internet versus a spam mailer spraying bits all over the internet .
In both cases , the user probably clicked something ( skype.exe or boobs.jpg.exe ) , and clicked " OK " when the OS asked if they were sure .
At that point the reins are in the hands of the user.You can put a HUD , anti-lock brakes , cornering headlights , parking sonar , all-weather tires , and wrap-around cabin airbags in a car , but a stupid user will crash it just the same .
It 's not the car 's fault that the user wanted to drive down an icy mountain road with hairpin turns at 60 mph at 3a.m .
in a blizzard .
Which- in my experience doing ISP tech support and working with people in various office environments- is EXACTLY what many users want to do.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of an OS that can tell the difference between skype spraying bit all over the internet versus a spam mailer spraying bits all over the internet.
In both cases, the user probably clicked something (skype.exe or boobs.jpg.exe), and clicked "OK" when the OS asked if they were sure.
At that point the reins are in the hands of the user.You can put a HUD, anti-lock brakes, cornering headlights, parking sonar, all-weather tires, and wrap-around cabin airbags in a car, but a stupid user will crash it just the same.
It's not the car's fault that the user wanted to drive down an icy mountain road with hairpin turns at 60 mph at 3a.m.
in a blizzard.
Which- in my experience doing ISP tech support and working with people in various office environments- is EXACTLY what many users want to do.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891336</id>
	<title>Re:Stop tinkering with things they don't understan</title>
	<author>c-reus</author>
	<datestamp>1264439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>agreed, as long as the definition of "zombies" will only include the actual zombies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>agreed , as long as the definition of " zombies " will only include the actual zombies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agreed, as long as the definition of "zombies" will only include the actual zombies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892222</id>
	<title>yes sir mister policeman</title>
	<author>troll -1</author>
	<datestamp>1264442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like another case of politicians regulating something they don't understand. Define botnet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like another case of politicians regulating something they do n't understand .
Define botnet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like another case of politicians regulating something they don't understand.
Define botnet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894718</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1264453140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem I have with this is that my own ISP has blocked me using the excuse that I might have an infected computer. I tell them that I'm running os x and the problem is immediately fixed.</p><p>What concerns me is that what my ISP was doing was not 'bot profiling' (I have almost every port blocked and I'm not running any services that use weird ports, like some p2p software does)- they were simply disconnecting/throttling down their heavy users. I don't use the internet at home more than a few hours a day, and my computer is hibernating all day. I can't tell you how pissed I would be if my isp completely blocked my connection and forced me to jump through hoops to restart it pretending that it had something to do with security.</p><p>These ISPs are going to use this opportunity to take care of their heavy user problem. That bugs me.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem I have with this is that my own ISP has blocked me using the excuse that I might have an infected computer .
I tell them that I 'm running os x and the problem is immediately fixed.What concerns me is that what my ISP was doing was not 'bot profiling ' ( I have almost every port blocked and I 'm not running any services that use weird ports , like some p2p software does ) - they were simply disconnecting/throttling down their heavy users .
I do n't use the internet at home more than a few hours a day , and my computer is hibernating all day .
I ca n't tell you how pissed I would be if my isp completely blocked my connection and forced me to jump through hoops to restart it pretending that it had something to do with security.These ISPs are going to use this opportunity to take care of their heavy user problem .
That bugs me.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem I have with this is that my own ISP has blocked me using the excuse that I might have an infected computer.
I tell them that I'm running os x and the problem is immediately fixed.What concerns me is that what my ISP was doing was not 'bot profiling' (I have almost every port blocked and I'm not running any services that use weird ports, like some p2p software does)- they were simply disconnecting/throttling down their heavy users.
I don't use the internet at home more than a few hours a day, and my computer is hibernating all day.
I can't tell you how pissed I would be if my isp completely blocked my connection and forced me to jump through hoops to restart it pretending that it had something to do with security.These ISPs are going to use this opportunity to take care of their heavy user problem.
That bugs me.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891454</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>crossmr</author>
	<datestamp>1264439880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been calling for this for years, on Slashdot and other venues. ISPs do monitor suspicious behaviour. I can remember many many years ago when I was much younger and playing around with netbus and scanning the default port 1234 with it for about 20 minutes. The next day we got a call from the ISP asking if everything was okay.</p><p>There is no reason that a reasonable profile can't be built to detect standard bot activity and customers notified if this kind of behaviour has been noted coming from their connection. They can either explain it if its justified or end up disconnected if they can't explain it and won't do anything to stop it.</p><p>I don't think P2P would end up fitting any standard profile as it seems to be the most common things we hear about bots are spam and denial of service attacks. Neither of which should really look like P2P.</p><p>I would hope if it goes well in Australia other countries will pick it up and if some countries turn into havens for bot net operates and refuse to disconnect them perhaps other countries will just shut them off entirely until they agree to play nice with the rest of the internet.</p><p>There is no reason ISPs can't have a list of currently blocked users redirected to a page with free AV/recent definitions, and step by step instructions on how to run them all to clean off their machine. Once the user has done so, they can be removed from the list and free to go back out and click on every shiny icon they can find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been calling for this for years , on Slashdot and other venues .
ISPs do monitor suspicious behaviour .
I can remember many many years ago when I was much younger and playing around with netbus and scanning the default port 1234 with it for about 20 minutes .
The next day we got a call from the ISP asking if everything was okay.There is no reason that a reasonable profile ca n't be built to detect standard bot activity and customers notified if this kind of behaviour has been noted coming from their connection .
They can either explain it if its justified or end up disconnected if they ca n't explain it and wo n't do anything to stop it.I do n't think P2P would end up fitting any standard profile as it seems to be the most common things we hear about bots are spam and denial of service attacks .
Neither of which should really look like P2P.I would hope if it goes well in Australia other countries will pick it up and if some countries turn into havens for bot net operates and refuse to disconnect them perhaps other countries will just shut them off entirely until they agree to play nice with the rest of the internet.There is no reason ISPs ca n't have a list of currently blocked users redirected to a page with free AV/recent definitions , and step by step instructions on how to run them all to clean off their machine .
Once the user has done so , they can be removed from the list and free to go back out and click on every shiny icon they can find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been calling for this for years, on Slashdot and other venues.
ISPs do monitor suspicious behaviour.
I can remember many many years ago when I was much younger and playing around with netbus and scanning the default port 1234 with it for about 20 minutes.
The next day we got a call from the ISP asking if everything was okay.There is no reason that a reasonable profile can't be built to detect standard bot activity and customers notified if this kind of behaviour has been noted coming from their connection.
They can either explain it if its justified or end up disconnected if they can't explain it and won't do anything to stop it.I don't think P2P would end up fitting any standard profile as it seems to be the most common things we hear about bots are spam and denial of service attacks.
Neither of which should really look like P2P.I would hope if it goes well in Australia other countries will pick it up and if some countries turn into havens for bot net operates and refuse to disconnect them perhaps other countries will just shut them off entirely until they agree to play nice with the rest of the internet.There is no reason ISPs can't have a list of currently blocked users redirected to a page with free AV/recent definitions, and step by step instructions on how to run them all to clean off their machine.
Once the user has done so, they can be removed from the list and free to go back out and click on every shiny icon they can find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30900460</id>
	<title>Re:Give a discount to those running clean systems.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Giving a discount to people using FreeBSD or Solaris because it's less likely to get owned than windows is retarded. This is where exploitation is learned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Giving a discount to people using FreeBSD or Solaris because it 's less likely to get owned than windows is retarded .
This is where exploitation is learned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Giving a discount to people using FreeBSD or Solaris because it's less likely to get owned than windows is retarded.
This is where exploitation is learned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891194</id>
	<title>Re:Who will fix the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264439220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares? He owns it, its his responsibility to fix it. Pay someone if he cant figure it out and stop clicking on NAKED\_PHOTOS.EXE or doesnt understand why he should be doing those Microsoft updates.  Should we also coddle drivers with unsafe cars because they arent mechanics?</p><p>Its only when there's a financial incentive to keep a machine patched and thinking before clicking that people will begin doing so. Or switching to OSX or Linux. The status quo of not taking responsibility for your own computer isnt sustainable and isnt helping anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
He owns it , its his responsibility to fix it .
Pay someone if he cant figure it out and stop clicking on NAKED \ _PHOTOS.EXE or doesnt understand why he should be doing those Microsoft updates .
Should we also coddle drivers with unsafe cars because they arent mechanics ? Its only when there 's a financial incentive to keep a machine patched and thinking before clicking that people will begin doing so .
Or switching to OSX or Linux .
The status quo of not taking responsibility for your own computer isnt sustainable and isnt helping anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
He owns it, its his responsibility to fix it.
Pay someone if he cant figure it out and stop clicking on NAKED\_PHOTOS.EXE or doesnt understand why he should be doing those Microsoft updates.
Should we also coddle drivers with unsafe cars because they arent mechanics?Its only when there's a financial incentive to keep a machine patched and thinking before clicking that people will begin doing so.
Or switching to OSX or Linux.
The status quo of not taking responsibility for your own computer isnt sustainable and isnt helping anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892180</id>
	<title>Will this be abused?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What checks are in place to prevent this being used as an excuse to take down "toublesome" sites?</p><p>I mean, computers that are part of the Tor privacy network, or part of freenet, or bittorrent servers, or used by contributors to Wikileaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What checks are in place to prevent this being used as an excuse to take down " toublesome " sites ? I mean , computers that are part of the Tor privacy network , or part of freenet , or bittorrent servers , or used by contributors to Wikileaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What checks are in place to prevent this being used as an excuse to take down "toublesome" sites?I mean, computers that are part of the Tor privacy network, or part of freenet, or bittorrent servers, or used by contributors to Wikileaks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30901700</id>
	<title>Re:Go after the CnC</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1264501500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps because 1) that can involve breaking the law (hacking machines) where as blocking people and making them tidy up doesn't, 2) the CnC nodes are getting more and more distributed, 3) that still leaves the bots on the machines, whether they're controlled or not and 4) chances are the CnC node is outside the ISPs control, where as the 100,000 bots are in their control <i>and</i> affecting resources they care about (like bandwidth and blacklisting of their IP addresses).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps because 1 ) that can involve breaking the law ( hacking machines ) where as blocking people and making them tidy up does n't , 2 ) the CnC nodes are getting more and more distributed , 3 ) that still leaves the bots on the machines , whether they 're controlled or not and 4 ) chances are the CnC node is outside the ISPs control , where as the 100,000 bots are in their control and affecting resources they care about ( like bandwidth and blacklisting of their IP addresses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps because 1) that can involve breaking the law (hacking machines) where as blocking people and making them tidy up doesn't, 2) the CnC nodes are getting more and more distributed, 3) that still leaves the bots on the machines, whether they're controlled or not and 4) chances are the CnC node is outside the ISPs control, where as the 100,000 bots are in their control and affecting resources they care about (like bandwidth and blacklisting of their IP addresses).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892138</id>
	<title>Uk ISP's have done this before</title>
	<author>hairykrishna</author>
	<datestamp>1264442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the height of the blaster outbreak a few UK ISPs cut off blaster infected PC's and redirected to a 'clean up your PC' page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the height of the blaster outbreak a few UK ISPs cut off blaster infected PC 's and redirected to a 'clean up your PC ' page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the height of the blaster outbreak a few UK ISPs cut off blaster infected PC's and redirected to a 'clean up your PC' page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890932</id>
	<title>New definition of zombies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264438320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a perfect opportunity to get that pesky free speech done away with. Just declare every kind of government-critical information a "misuse of computers", and you can institute a quarantine on any "zombie" computer being used to distribute malicious "anti-government spam". It's such an awesome plan that I feel the urge to cackle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a perfect opportunity to get that pesky free speech done away with .
Just declare every kind of government-critical information a " misuse of computers " , and you can institute a quarantine on any " zombie " computer being used to distribute malicious " anti-government spam " .
It 's such an awesome plan that I feel the urge to cackle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a perfect opportunity to get that pesky free speech done away with.
Just declare every kind of government-critical information a "misuse of computers", and you can institute a quarantine on any "zombie" computer being used to distribute malicious "anti-government spam".
It's such an awesome plan that I feel the urge to cackle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896724</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>dasmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264417560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been calling for this for years, on Slashdot and other venues. ISPs do monitor suspicious behaviour. I can remember many many years ago when I was much younger and playing around with netbus and scanning the default port 1234 with it for about 20 minutes. The next day we got a call from the ISP asking if everything was okay.</p></div><p>This was more likely because of complaints from 40+ year old men watching firewall logs. Back in the day we used to get people installing things like zone alarm, or some other kinda dodgy firewall which alerted them to the fact that someone was trying to scan their machine. Oh the stupid shit that they would ring up with, expecting us to be akin to the police. We would sometimes do something, and sometimes not, depending on how many complaints they would send (the more you sent, the less likely action would be taken). The only action taken though was ringing and asking what was going on, explaining that perhaps they had a virus (or a teenager).  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been calling for this for years , on Slashdot and other venues .
ISPs do monitor suspicious behaviour .
I can remember many many years ago when I was much younger and playing around with netbus and scanning the default port 1234 with it for about 20 minutes .
The next day we got a call from the ISP asking if everything was okay.This was more likely because of complaints from 40 + year old men watching firewall logs .
Back in the day we used to get people installing things like zone alarm , or some other kinda dodgy firewall which alerted them to the fact that someone was trying to scan their machine .
Oh the stupid shit that they would ring up with , expecting us to be akin to the police .
We would sometimes do something , and sometimes not , depending on how many complaints they would send ( the more you sent , the less likely action would be taken ) .
The only action taken though was ringing and asking what was going on , explaining that perhaps they had a virus ( or a teenager ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been calling for this for years, on Slashdot and other venues.
ISPs do monitor suspicious behaviour.
I can remember many many years ago when I was much younger and playing around with netbus and scanning the default port 1234 with it for about 20 minutes.
The next day we got a call from the ISP asking if everything was okay.This was more likely because of complaints from 40+ year old men watching firewall logs.
Back in the day we used to get people installing things like zone alarm, or some other kinda dodgy firewall which alerted them to the fact that someone was trying to scan their machine.
Oh the stupid shit that they would ring up with, expecting us to be akin to the police.
We would sometimes do something, and sometimes not, depending on how many complaints they would send (the more you sent, the less likely action would be taken).
The only action taken though was ringing and asking what was going on, explaining that perhaps they had a virus (or a teenager).  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894024</id>
	<title>Re:why not directly disconnect every Windows machi</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1264450260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait - you are supposed to LOG IN to a hotspot?  Seriously?  Maybe I've been doing it wrong.  I usually just spoof a MAC address, and take over an existing connection.  Sometimes, I just log into the router, and change the settings more to my liking.  There are so MANY imaginative ways to use a hotspot - why log in?  Spoofing a MAC address has the advantage of making my terrorist network activities appear to be dozens of different people.  Why, just last week I sold a suitcase nuke to an Ethiopian who had fallen on hard times.<br>I only deduced that he has fallen on hard times, because his certified cashier's check bounced.  I'm still waiting to hear back from him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait - you are supposed to LOG IN to a hotspot ?
Seriously ? Maybe I 've been doing it wrong .
I usually just spoof a MAC address , and take over an existing connection .
Sometimes , I just log into the router , and change the settings more to my liking .
There are so MANY imaginative ways to use a hotspot - why log in ?
Spoofing a MAC address has the advantage of making my terrorist network activities appear to be dozens of different people .
Why , just last week I sold a suitcase nuke to an Ethiopian who had fallen on hard times.I only deduced that he has fallen on hard times , because his certified cashier 's check bounced .
I 'm still waiting to hear back from him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait - you are supposed to LOG IN to a hotspot?
Seriously?  Maybe I've been doing it wrong.
I usually just spoof a MAC address, and take over an existing connection.
Sometimes, I just log into the router, and change the settings more to my liking.
There are so MANY imaginative ways to use a hotspot - why log in?
Spoofing a MAC address has the advantage of making my terrorist network activities appear to be dozens of different people.
Why, just last week I sold a suitcase nuke to an Ethiopian who had fallen on hard times.I only deduced that he has fallen on hard times, because his certified cashier's check bounced.
I'm still waiting to hear back from him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897894</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Precedent?</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1264423320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Several of the large Australian ISPs block outgoing port 25 completely unless you ask to have it opened. You talk to their mail server or none at all. It was a pain when we had people roaming on laptops. We moved them to 2525 and all was good. The ISPs assume that if you can run a server on an alternate port, you know enough to not be a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Several of the large Australian ISPs block outgoing port 25 completely unless you ask to have it opened .
You talk to their mail server or none at all .
It was a pain when we had people roaming on laptops .
We moved them to 2525 and all was good .
The ISPs assume that if you can run a server on an alternate port , you know enough to not be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several of the large Australian ISPs block outgoing port 25 completely unless you ask to have it opened.
You talk to their mail server or none at all.
It was a pain when we had people roaming on laptops.
We moved them to 2525 and all was good.
The ISPs assume that if you can run a server on an alternate port, you know enough to not be a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894754</id>
	<title>Re:why not directly disconnect every Windows machi</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1264410060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It definitely will make an impact if all countries follow suit with a similar program.<br>Contacting the owner is the first good step, as for limiting connection speeds, well, I don't get that, especially if I paid for full speed, whether I am using it for spam or not, it is paid for, but let me know that I am spamming millions of emails per day, and I will change my computer install yesterday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It definitely will make an impact if all countries follow suit with a similar program.Contacting the owner is the first good step , as for limiting connection speeds , well , I do n't get that , especially if I paid for full speed , whether I am using it for spam or not , it is paid for , but let me know that I am spamming millions of emails per day , and I will change my computer install yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It definitely will make an impact if all countries follow suit with a similar program.Contacting the owner is the first good step, as for limiting connection speeds, well, I don't get that, especially if I paid for full speed, whether I am using it for spam or not, it is paid for, but let me know that I am spamming millions of emails per day, and I will change my computer install yesterday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892824</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just filter out the bot net traffic?</title>
	<author>StillNeedMoreCoffee</author>
	<datestamp>1264444620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It just occured to me that if you can identify those computures that have Bot nets running, you have to be able to identify what that bot net traffic is. Why not just filter that out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just occured to me that if you can identify those computures that have Bot nets running , you have to be able to identify what that bot net traffic is .
Why not just filter that out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just occured to me that if you can identify those computures that have Bot nets running, you have to be able to identify what that bot net traffic is.
Why not just filter that out?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894420</id>
	<title>Re:Give a discount to those running clean systems.</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264451880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they're not willingly doing is completely absurd, and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world</p></div></blockquote><p> <b>This statement of yours is completely absurd</b> </p><p>A computer that's a zombie node of a botnet is most likely dishing out spam by the thousands by the minute effectively clogging the InterTubes with digital feces. Additionally it is also part of any DDoS attack associated w/ that particular botnet's activities.</p><p>This makes that computer engaging in criminal activities regardless of the owner's intentions. The owner of said computer is negligent and should have their connection isolated until the computer engaged in infraction is cleaned. If the owner continues to engage in connecting this machine to the interTubes, he/she should be fined and perhaps even have their box confiscated. Of course at this point, their box is probably also loaded with child pornography and serving it up along with the spam. This makes the owner guilty of criminal activities, willing or not, and should be subject to criminal prosecution.</p><p>
We all know that 99.9\% of these botnet zombies are all running some version of M$ windoz. Microsoft has made plenty of money selling this defective software and should be held accountable in fixing the sloppy code attributed with the infected systems. If they have a better upgrade such as Win-7, they should do the honourable thing and allow their client base to upgrade at great discount or even free.</p><p>Of course, I won't hold my breath on seeing M$ do anything honourable given their reputation of being the sleazy marketing company they are known to be by reputation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they 're not willingly doing is completely absurd , and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world This statement of yours is completely absurd A computer that 's a zombie node of a botnet is most likely dishing out spam by the thousands by the minute effectively clogging the InterTubes with digital feces .
Additionally it is also part of any DDoS attack associated w/ that particular botnet 's activities.This makes that computer engaging in criminal activities regardless of the owner 's intentions .
The owner of said computer is negligent and should have their connection isolated until the computer engaged in infraction is cleaned .
If the owner continues to engage in connecting this machine to the interTubes , he/she should be fined and perhaps even have their box confiscated .
Of course at this point , their box is probably also loaded with child pornography and serving it up along with the spam .
This makes the owner guilty of criminal activities , willing or not , and should be subject to criminal prosecution .
We all know that 99.9 \ % of these botnet zombies are all running some version of M $ windoz .
Microsoft has made plenty of money selling this defective software and should be held accountable in fixing the sloppy code attributed with the infected systems .
If they have a better upgrade such as Win-7 , they should do the honourable thing and allow their client base to upgrade at great discount or even free.Of course , I wo n't hold my breath on seeing M $ do anything honourable given their reputation of being the sleazy marketing company they are known to be by reputation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they're not willingly doing is completely absurd, and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world This statement of yours is completely absurd A computer that's a zombie node of a botnet is most likely dishing out spam by the thousands by the minute effectively clogging the InterTubes with digital feces.
Additionally it is also part of any DDoS attack associated w/ that particular botnet's activities.This makes that computer engaging in criminal activities regardless of the owner's intentions.
The owner of said computer is negligent and should have their connection isolated until the computer engaged in infraction is cleaned.
If the owner continues to engage in connecting this machine to the interTubes, he/she should be fined and perhaps even have their box confiscated.
Of course at this point, their box is probably also loaded with child pornography and serving it up along with the spam.
This makes the owner guilty of criminal activities, willing or not, and should be subject to criminal prosecution.
We all know that 99.9\% of these botnet zombies are all running some version of M$ windoz.
Microsoft has made plenty of money selling this defective software and should be held accountable in fixing the sloppy code attributed with the infected systems.
If they have a better upgrade such as Win-7, they should do the honourable thing and allow their client base to upgrade at great discount or even free.Of course, I won't hold my breath on seeing M$ do anything honourable given their reputation of being the sleazy marketing company they are known to be by reputation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30895648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30913442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30899210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30898116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30900592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30900460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30915170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30901700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30912910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30895882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30900126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30913038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1458231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30898116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30900126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30899210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30895648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30913442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30901700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30895610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30900592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30912910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30900460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894420
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30896416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30894606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30913038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1458231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30890872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30915170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30893022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30895882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30897326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30892654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1458231.30891736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
