<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_29_0358229</id>
	<title>Chrome Apes IE8, Adds Clickjacking, XSS Defenses</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264752120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Google has announced that it <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9149922/Chrome\_apes\_IE8\_adds\_clickjacking\_XSS\_defenses">added several new security features to Chrome 4</a>, including two security measures first popularized (<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9126951/IE8\_s\_clickjacking\_protection\_will\_have\_zero\_impact\_says\_researcher">some later shot down as having 'zero impact'</a>) by rival Microsoft's IE8 last year. The newest 'stable' build of Chrome includes five security additions that target Web developers who want to build more secure sites, said Adam Barth, a software engineer on the Chrome team. The two aped from IE include 'X-Frame-Options'" a security feature that helps sites defend against 'clickjacking' attacks, and cross-site scripting protection.'"In Google Chrome 4, we've added an experimental feature to help mitigate one form of XSS [cross-site scripting], reflective XSS,' Barth said. 'The XSS filter checks whether a script that's about to run on a Web page is also present in the request that fetched that Web page. If the script is present in the request, that's a strong indication that the Web server might have been tricked into reflecting the script.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Google has announced that it added several new security features to Chrome 4 , including two security measures first popularized ( some later shot down as having 'zero impact ' ) by rival Microsoft 's IE8 last year .
The newest 'stable ' build of Chrome includes five security additions that target Web developers who want to build more secure sites , said Adam Barth , a software engineer on the Chrome team .
The two aped from IE include 'X-Frame-Options ' " a security feature that helps sites defend against 'clickjacking ' attacks , and cross-site scripting protection .
' " In Google Chrome 4 , we 've added an experimental feature to help mitigate one form of XSS [ cross-site scripting ] , reflective XSS, ' Barth said .
'The XSS filter checks whether a script that 's about to run on a Web page is also present in the request that fetched that Web page .
If the script is present in the request , that 's a strong indication that the Web server might have been tricked into reflecting the script .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Google has announced that it added several new security features to Chrome 4, including two security measures first popularized (some later shot down as having 'zero impact') by rival Microsoft's IE8 last year.
The newest 'stable' build of Chrome includes five security additions that target Web developers who want to build more secure sites, said Adam Barth, a software engineer on the Chrome team.
The two aped from IE include 'X-Frame-Options'" a security feature that helps sites defend against 'clickjacking' attacks, and cross-site scripting protection.
'"In Google Chrome 4, we've added an experimental feature to help mitigate one form of XSS [cross-site scripting], reflective XSS,' Barth said.
'The XSS filter checks whether a script that's about to run on a Web page is also present in the request that fetched that Web page.
If the script is present in the request, that's a strong indication that the Web server might have been tricked into reflecting the script.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947090</id>
	<title>but what about jQuery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm interested into how this ties in with commonly used external scripts, such as the jQuery and Yui frameworks which are commonly fetched from their respective servers, rather than hosted locally on the server of the website, so they're cached etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm interested into how this ties in with commonly used external scripts , such as the jQuery and Yui frameworks which are commonly fetched from their respective servers , rather than hosted locally on the server of the website , so they 're cached etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm interested into how this ties in with commonly used external scripts, such as the jQuery and Yui frameworks which are commonly fetched from their respective servers, rather than hosted locally on the server of the website, so they're cached etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949580</id>
	<title>Re:Stay classy /.</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1264781580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Your house is seriously insecure, even if you have a steel door and have window panes are made of bullet-proof glass, you probably live in a stick frame building where a drill and a sawz-all can gain me access to the interior in an hour or two. Yet no one seems to get excited about the insecurity of our houses.</p></div></blockquote><p>In large part because, as you point out, it's impossible to make a house physically secure (although security guards can hypothetically do a good job).  Similarly, it's impossible to make a computer physically secure (after all, it's in a house or building and those security guards still aren't perfect).  Meanwhile, software, being a virtual good, can actually provide absolute security within the confines of the computer that runs it being physically secure.  Hence, there's a higher standard held on software.</p><blockquote><div><p>When our houses get robbed, we recognize that the wrongdoing is being done by the criminal. Yet when our computers are hacked, we place the wrongdoing on the provider of the software.</p></div></blockquote><p>No.  In both situations, the wrongdoers are the criminals.  The issue comes to the point, really, of whether any blame can be put upon the constructor of your house (or its parts) and the constructor of your computer (or its parts).  For homes, if someone sold a lock that, as sold, should be reasonably able to stop being hacksawed through was in fact hacksawed through, you'd still have reason to blame the lock maker.  Similarly, software that is clearly defective against what it reasonably should block would leave blame upon the software maker.  The issue, then, is merely that Microsoft (and most software makers) regularly admit their software is faulty (the need for Windows Update).  The only real thing left, then, is to point out that Microsoft has such a poor reputation, no person should reasonably expect their software to be secure; if that's your position, I agree that blame is being badly cast on Microsoft.</p><blockquote><div><p>I have never really understood why software is held to such lofty standards, particularly on consumer desktops. It would be one thing if file sharing of your entire filesystem was enabled by default in typical software, but lets be real- hacks these days require really clever methods to exploit systems, and if it wasn't for very intelligent, very dedicated people constantly pounding and poking our software, we wouldn't have to worry at all. Yet an uneducated teenager can break into a house in a few minutes with little more than a stick to break a window, and we seem to all go about our day without any outrage at all.</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, software can be actually made secure.  Most the "easy" exploits have been fixed because they are actually fixable.  There's nothing you can do to prevent a teenager from being able to break into a house (well, not legally, anyways); you can in many states/areas shoot the teenager after they enter.  The comparison is rather apple and oranges.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your house is seriously insecure , even if you have a steel door and have window panes are made of bullet-proof glass , you probably live in a stick frame building where a drill and a sawz-all can gain me access to the interior in an hour or two .
Yet no one seems to get excited about the insecurity of our houses.In large part because , as you point out , it 's impossible to make a house physically secure ( although security guards can hypothetically do a good job ) .
Similarly , it 's impossible to make a computer physically secure ( after all , it 's in a house or building and those security guards still are n't perfect ) .
Meanwhile , software , being a virtual good , can actually provide absolute security within the confines of the computer that runs it being physically secure .
Hence , there 's a higher standard held on software.When our houses get robbed , we recognize that the wrongdoing is being done by the criminal .
Yet when our computers are hacked , we place the wrongdoing on the provider of the software.No .
In both situations , the wrongdoers are the criminals .
The issue comes to the point , really , of whether any blame can be put upon the constructor of your house ( or its parts ) and the constructor of your computer ( or its parts ) .
For homes , if someone sold a lock that , as sold , should be reasonably able to stop being hacksawed through was in fact hacksawed through , you 'd still have reason to blame the lock maker .
Similarly , software that is clearly defective against what it reasonably should block would leave blame upon the software maker .
The issue , then , is merely that Microsoft ( and most software makers ) regularly admit their software is faulty ( the need for Windows Update ) .
The only real thing left , then , is to point out that Microsoft has such a poor reputation , no person should reasonably expect their software to be secure ; if that 's your position , I agree that blame is being badly cast on Microsoft.I have never really understood why software is held to such lofty standards , particularly on consumer desktops .
It would be one thing if file sharing of your entire filesystem was enabled by default in typical software , but lets be real- hacks these days require really clever methods to exploit systems , and if it was n't for very intelligent , very dedicated people constantly pounding and poking our software , we would n't have to worry at all .
Yet an uneducated teenager can break into a house in a few minutes with little more than a stick to break a window , and we seem to all go about our day without any outrage at all.Again , software can be actually made secure .
Most the " easy " exploits have been fixed because they are actually fixable .
There 's nothing you can do to prevent a teenager from being able to break into a house ( well , not legally , anyways ) ; you can in many states/areas shoot the teenager after they enter .
The comparison is rather apple and oranges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your house is seriously insecure, even if you have a steel door and have window panes are made of bullet-proof glass, you probably live in a stick frame building where a drill and a sawz-all can gain me access to the interior in an hour or two.
Yet no one seems to get excited about the insecurity of our houses.In large part because, as you point out, it's impossible to make a house physically secure (although security guards can hypothetically do a good job).
Similarly, it's impossible to make a computer physically secure (after all, it's in a house or building and those security guards still aren't perfect).
Meanwhile, software, being a virtual good, can actually provide absolute security within the confines of the computer that runs it being physically secure.
Hence, there's a higher standard held on software.When our houses get robbed, we recognize that the wrongdoing is being done by the criminal.
Yet when our computers are hacked, we place the wrongdoing on the provider of the software.No.
In both situations, the wrongdoers are the criminals.
The issue comes to the point, really, of whether any blame can be put upon the constructor of your house (or its parts) and the constructor of your computer (or its parts).
For homes, if someone sold a lock that, as sold, should be reasonably able to stop being hacksawed through was in fact hacksawed through, you'd still have reason to blame the lock maker.
Similarly, software that is clearly defective against what it reasonably should block would leave blame upon the software maker.
The issue, then, is merely that Microsoft (and most software makers) regularly admit their software is faulty (the need for Windows Update).
The only real thing left, then, is to point out that Microsoft has such a poor reputation, no person should reasonably expect their software to be secure; if that's your position, I agree that blame is being badly cast on Microsoft.I have never really understood why software is held to such lofty standards, particularly on consumer desktops.
It would be one thing if file sharing of your entire filesystem was enabled by default in typical software, but lets be real- hacks these days require really clever methods to exploit systems, and if it wasn't for very intelligent, very dedicated people constantly pounding and poking our software, we wouldn't have to worry at all.
Yet an uneducated teenager can break into a house in a few minutes with little more than a stick to break a window, and we seem to all go about our day without any outrage at all.Again, software can be actually made secure.
Most the "easy" exploits have been fixed because they are actually fixable.
There's nothing you can do to prevent a teenager from being able to break into a house (well, not legally, anyways); you can in many states/areas shoot the teenager after they enter.
The comparison is rather apple and oranges.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948222</id>
	<title>Re:What's the need for all this security stuff...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1264773600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...when Google goes ahead, tracks your every move, "</p><p><a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173" title="mozilla.org">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173</a> [mozilla.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...when Google goes ahead , tracks your every move , " https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...when Google goes ahead, tracks your every move, "https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173 [mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622</id>
	<title>Ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264766280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Chrome can't block ads it's not ready for the internet. It doesn't matter what else it does and doesn't do, blocking stupid flashing graphics is the main function of web browsers these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Chrome ca n't block ads it 's not ready for the internet .
It does n't matter what else it does and does n't do , blocking stupid flashing graphics is the main function of web browsers these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Chrome can't block ads it's not ready for the internet.
It doesn't matter what else it does and doesn't do, blocking stupid flashing graphics is the main function of web browsers these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947380</id>
	<title>Chrome Apes IE8, Adds Clickjacking, XSS</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1264762380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Defenses</p><p>I like how Slashdot renders that headline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DefensesI like how Slashdot renders that headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DefensesI like how Slashdot renders that headline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947060</id>
	<title>security by obscurity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>security by obscurity... just imagine how many developers will be baffled by this behavior, spending hours trying to find out what is wrong with their code...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>security by obscurity... just imagine how many developers will be baffled by this behavior , spending hours trying to find out what is wrong with their code.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>security by obscurity... just imagine how many developers will be baffled by this behavior, spending hours trying to find out what is wrong with their code...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30954092</id>
	<title>Re:What's the need for all this security stuff...</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264756140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad no one else is tracking me and that Bing doesn't use the same tactics. If you don't like being tracked then you should attack everyone rather than just the guy on top who will just end up being replaced by someone doing the same exact thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad no one else is tracking me and that Bing does n't use the same tactics .
If you do n't like being tracked then you should attack everyone rather than just the guy on top who will just end up being replaced by someone doing the same exact thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad no one else is tracking me and that Bing doesn't use the same tactics.
If you don't like being tracked then you should attack everyone rather than just the guy on top who will just end up being replaced by someone doing the same exact thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949158</id>
	<title>Re:Stay classy /.</title>
	<author>Kevin Stevens</author>
	<datestamp>1264779720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your house is seriously insecure, even if you have a steel door and have window panes are made of bullet-proof glass, you probably live in a stick frame building where a drill and a sawz-all can gain me access to the interior in an hour or two. Yet no one seems to get excited about the insecurity of our houses.</p><p>When our houses get robbed, we recognize that the wrongdoing is being done by the criminal. Yet when our computers are hacked, we place the wrongdoing on the provider of the software.</p><p>I have never really understood why software is held to such lofty standards, particularly on consumer desktops. It would be one thing if file sharing of your entire filesystem was enabled by default in typical software, but lets be real- hacks these days require really clever methods to exploit systems, and if it wasn't for very intelligent, very dedicated people constantly pounding and poking our software, we wouldn't have to worry at all.  Yet an uneducated teenager can break into a house in a few minutes with little more than a stick to break a window, and we seem to all go about our day without any outrage at all.</p><p>I just don't understand this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your house is seriously insecure , even if you have a steel door and have window panes are made of bullet-proof glass , you probably live in a stick frame building where a drill and a sawz-all can gain me access to the interior in an hour or two .
Yet no one seems to get excited about the insecurity of our houses.When our houses get robbed , we recognize that the wrongdoing is being done by the criminal .
Yet when our computers are hacked , we place the wrongdoing on the provider of the software.I have never really understood why software is held to such lofty standards , particularly on consumer desktops .
It would be one thing if file sharing of your entire filesystem was enabled by default in typical software , but lets be real- hacks these days require really clever methods to exploit systems , and if it was n't for very intelligent , very dedicated people constantly pounding and poking our software , we would n't have to worry at all .
Yet an uneducated teenager can break into a house in a few minutes with little more than a stick to break a window , and we seem to all go about our day without any outrage at all.I just do n't understand this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your house is seriously insecure, even if you have a steel door and have window panes are made of bullet-proof glass, you probably live in a stick frame building where a drill and a sawz-all can gain me access to the interior in an hour or two.
Yet no one seems to get excited about the insecurity of our houses.When our houses get robbed, we recognize that the wrongdoing is being done by the criminal.
Yet when our computers are hacked, we place the wrongdoing on the provider of the software.I have never really understood why software is held to such lofty standards, particularly on consumer desktops.
It would be one thing if file sharing of your entire filesystem was enabled by default in typical software, but lets be real- hacks these days require really clever methods to exploit systems, and if it wasn't for very intelligent, very dedicated people constantly pounding and poking our software, we wouldn't have to worry at all.
Yet an uneducated teenager can break into a house in a few minutes with little more than a stick to break a window, and we seem to all go about our day without any outrage at all.I just don't understand this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30967690</id>
	<title>Re:Ads</title>
	<author>JThundley</author>
	<datestamp>1264867200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's how I block flash: Never install it in the first place.</p><p>It's foolproof and works on all sites!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how I block flash : Never install it in the first place.It 's foolproof and works on all sites !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how I block flash: Never install it in the first place.It's foolproof and works on all sites!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947514</id>
	<title>Protection on other browsers</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1264764660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hackademix.net/2009/01/28/ie8s-clickjacking-protection-exposed/" title="hackademix.net">This post</a> [hackademix.net] of NoScript's author Giorgio Maone dates back to one year ago and goes into the details of X-Frame-Options. His point seems to be that if you have JavaScript enabled, there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framekiller" title="wikipedia.org">well-known ways</a> [wikipedia.org] to achieve the same result, unless you use IE (they can be circumvented). If you don't have JS enabled, NoScript on Firefox is already giving you the same degree of protection. Anyway (this is me) adding that level of protection by default on all browsers looks a nice thing to have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This post [ hackademix.net ] of NoScript 's author Giorgio Maone dates back to one year ago and goes into the details of X-Frame-Options .
His point seems to be that if you have JavaScript enabled , there are well-known ways [ wikipedia.org ] to achieve the same result , unless you use IE ( they can be circumvented ) .
If you do n't have JS enabled , NoScript on Firefox is already giving you the same degree of protection .
Anyway ( this is me ) adding that level of protection by default on all browsers looks a nice thing to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post [hackademix.net] of NoScript's author Giorgio Maone dates back to one year ago and goes into the details of X-Frame-Options.
His point seems to be that if you have JavaScript enabled, there are well-known ways [wikipedia.org] to achieve the same result, unless you use IE (they can be circumvented).
If you don't have JS enabled, NoScript on Firefox is already giving you the same degree of protection.
Anyway (this is me) adding that level of protection by default on all browsers looks a nice thing to have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30951600</id>
	<title>Re:Ads</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1264788900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, I remember this article on Slashdot about it:<br>
<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/1436257/Google-Says-Ad-Blockers-Will-Save-Online-Ads" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/1436257/Google-Says-Ad-Blockers-Will-Save-Online-Ads</a> [slashdot.org] <br>
Also, note that part of why Larry and Sergey chose to use text ads for Google is that they found banner and pop-up ads annoying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , I remember this article on Slashdot about it : http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/1436257/Google-Says-Ad-Blockers-Will-Save-Online-Ads [ slashdot.org ] Also , note that part of why Larry and Sergey chose to use text ads for Google is that they found banner and pop-up ads annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, I remember this article on Slashdot about it:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/1436257/Google-Says-Ad-Blockers-Will-Save-Online-Ads [slashdot.org] 
Also, note that part of why Larry and Sergey chose to use text ads for Google is that they found banner and pop-up ads annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946946</id>
	<title>Thanks</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1264756560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for adding the security features to Chrome, developers at Google.  That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for adding the security features to Chrome , developers at Google .
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for adding the security features to Chrome, developers at Google.
That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948726</id>
	<title>Re:What's the need for all this security stuff...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264777140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Add<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.google-analytics. to your AdblockPlus rules. Then install the Better Privacy extension. Finally, remove all existing cookies from Google and make sure that in future the permissions are set to 'Block'. Done, Google is not tracking you anymore.

<p>
(I work at Google, hence posting as AC.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add .google-analytics .
to your AdblockPlus rules .
Then install the Better Privacy extension .
Finally , remove all existing cookies from Google and make sure that in future the permissions are set to 'Block' .
Done , Google is not tracking you anymore .
( I work at Google , hence posting as AC .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add .google-analytics.
to your AdblockPlus rules.
Then install the Better Privacy extension.
Finally, remove all existing cookies from Google and make sure that in future the permissions are set to 'Block'.
Done, Google is not tracking you anymore.
(I work at Google, hence posting as AC.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948388</id>
	<title>Re:security by obscurity</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1264775220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>just imagine how many developers will be baffled by this behavior</p></div><p>Imagining...</p><p>Done. Zero developers were baffled.</p><p>Imagining complete.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>just imagine how many developers will be baffled by this behaviorImagining...Done .
Zero developers were baffled.Imagining complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just imagine how many developers will be baffled by this behaviorImagining...Done.
Zero developers were baffled.Imagining complete.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947138</id>
	<title>Cross-site scripting</title>
	<author>commlinx</author>
	<datestamp>1264759080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently I starting doing a bit of web development after being out of the loop for a while. I was working on a project and it was convenient to have the XHTML / JS running on my development machine while doing a few AJAX calls to my development server. After it failed at first I found I could add Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * to the HTTP header to allow cross-site access.</p><p>It made we wonder if you wanted to exploit cross-site vulnerabilities couldn't you setup a proxy in the middle that returned information from the original site but added that to the header? Anyway just got me wondering and maybe someone more knowledgeable could comment on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently I starting doing a bit of web development after being out of the loop for a while .
I was working on a project and it was convenient to have the XHTML / JS running on my development machine while doing a few AJAX calls to my development server .
After it failed at first I found I could add Access-Control-Allow-Origin : * to the HTTP header to allow cross-site access.It made we wonder if you wanted to exploit cross-site vulnerabilities could n't you setup a proxy in the middle that returned information from the original site but added that to the header ?
Anyway just got me wondering and maybe someone more knowledgeable could comment on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently I starting doing a bit of web development after being out of the loop for a while.
I was working on a project and it was convenient to have the XHTML / JS running on my development machine while doing a few AJAX calls to my development server.
After it failed at first I found I could add Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * to the HTTP header to allow cross-site access.It made we wonder if you wanted to exploit cross-site vulnerabilities couldn't you setup a proxy in the middle that returned information from the original site but added that to the header?
Anyway just got me wondering and maybe someone more knowledgeable could comment on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946958</id>
	<title>Chrome Apes? Moronic Monkies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264756620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else getting flashbacks from Planet of the Apes?</p><p>Is that the new code name for the next version of Chrome? Ubuntu Panhandling Panda, now featuring Chrome Apes! Download now! Steve Balmer your Monkey Boy days are numbered, so dance while you can, it's the year of the Google Desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else getting flashbacks from Planet of the Apes ? Is that the new code name for the next version of Chrome ?
Ubuntu Panhandling Panda , now featuring Chrome Apes !
Download now !
Steve Balmer your Monkey Boy days are numbered , so dance while you can , it 's the year of the Google Desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else getting flashbacks from Planet of the Apes?Is that the new code name for the next version of Chrome?
Ubuntu Panhandling Panda, now featuring Chrome Apes!
Download now!
Steve Balmer your Monkey Boy days are numbered, so dance while you can, it's the year of the Google Desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947388</id>
	<title>Dumb article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264762500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my god Chrome is copying IE by supporting for the http header X-Frame-Options that Microsoft wants web developers to start using. Don't they know you're supposed to invent your own browser-specific variation of what your opponent implements?</p><p>I also like how they mention Chrome added 5 security features but they only cover the 2 that are already in IE.</p><p>It's nice that all of the browsers are adding security features but can we cover one of them without focusing on who did what first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my god Chrome is copying IE by supporting for the http header X-Frame-Options that Microsoft wants web developers to start using .
Do n't they know you 're supposed to invent your own browser-specific variation of what your opponent implements ? I also like how they mention Chrome added 5 security features but they only cover the 2 that are already in IE.It 's nice that all of the browsers are adding security features but can we cover one of them without focusing on who did what first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my god Chrome is copying IE by supporting for the http header X-Frame-Options that Microsoft wants web developers to start using.
Don't they know you're supposed to invent your own browser-specific variation of what your opponent implements?I also like how they mention Chrome added 5 security features but they only cover the 2 that are already in IE.It's nice that all of the browsers are adding security features but can we cover one of them without focusing on who did what first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30952870</id>
	<title>That's good, but work on usability too please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264793580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Improving security is great, but they really need to keep working on usability as well! I just installed Chrome for the first time yesterday and have been playing around with it. It seems pretty speedy but the UI is a bit weird.<br>
<br>
The lack of a title bar seems kind of weird. I don't know what they were going for with that, but it's the only window on my entire machine and it stands out, and not in a good way. At one point i tried adding a new tab while waiting for visual studio to start a debug session, and the UI hung up for a little bit, and for a few brief seconds Chrome acquired a title bar. I actually thought it looked better that way. A couple minor aesthetic gripes. I may eventually get used to having the tab bar above the toolbar, though currently it seems pretty funky to me.<br>
<br>
I haven't done a side-by-side comparison with Firefox yet, but my initial rough estimates seem to be that Chrome uses at least 75\% as much memory as Firefox, possibly more, and at least as much virtual memory. I find the fact that Chrome has about 40 process running right now to be rather awkward, but hopefully it at least means that when i start closing large numbers of tabs that the memory will actually be released (unlike Firefox.)<br>
<br>
The biggest problem however is the tab bar. Personally i don't like having new tabs open in the middle of the bar, screwing up the ordering, but it was easy to find an extension to fix that behavior. However if you open up a lot of tabs they just get smaller and smaller until you can't see what each of them is anymore. And to my further frustration there's no way to access a list of the tabs. There are a couple extensions that offer some kind of tab index, but nothing that presents a simple list like in Firefox.<br>
<br>
After a little searching i found out the reason for these problems in a <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2009/01/tabbed-browsing-in-google-chrome.html" title="chromium.org">Chromium blog post.</a> [chromium.org] The designers are approaching the UI design from a heavily aesthetic angle. Which is good in theory, but they're also being fanatical about it. If they don't think a feature is aesthetically correct but can't think of a more aesthetically pleasing way to implement it they just won't implement the feature at all, even though they admit that the lack of that feature causes usability problems!<br>
<br>
And to wrap it all up, they say "In all of these areas we've resisted adding options to control behavior. Keeping our set of options minimal is a good forcing function for us as user interface designers to come up with the right approach, since we never rely on the crutch of making the user decide what we were unable to."<br>
<br>
Well i hate to tell you guys, but it doesn't seem to be working really well as a "forcing function" given that you've crippled an important part of the UI while dithering about what the "best" way to implement it is. The blog post was made a year ago and they apparently still haven't found a solution! And i find it very aggravating that they feel once they've come up with the "right" approach they don't want to provide options to do it any other way. Clearly if the user has a different aesthetic sense than the designer then the user is wrong! I've dealt with designers like this on projects before, and trying to convince them that the users can legitimately have a different opinion is a very frustrating task.<br>
<br>
I remember the painful process of Firefox developers trying to get their tab bar into a useful state under similar circumstances. Perhaps their solution isn't 100\% aesthetically appealing to the Chrome designers, but it undeniably \_works\_, and leaving the users hanging while they try to figure out something more "aesthetically" and "spatially" pleasing seems like pure egotism to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Improving security is great , but they really need to keep working on usability as well !
I just installed Chrome for the first time yesterday and have been playing around with it .
It seems pretty speedy but the UI is a bit weird .
The lack of a title bar seems kind of weird .
I do n't know what they were going for with that , but it 's the only window on my entire machine and it stands out , and not in a good way .
At one point i tried adding a new tab while waiting for visual studio to start a debug session , and the UI hung up for a little bit , and for a few brief seconds Chrome acquired a title bar .
I actually thought it looked better that way .
A couple minor aesthetic gripes .
I may eventually get used to having the tab bar above the toolbar , though currently it seems pretty funky to me .
I have n't done a side-by-side comparison with Firefox yet , but my initial rough estimates seem to be that Chrome uses at least 75 \ % as much memory as Firefox , possibly more , and at least as much virtual memory .
I find the fact that Chrome has about 40 process running right now to be rather awkward , but hopefully it at least means that when i start closing large numbers of tabs that the memory will actually be released ( unlike Firefox .
) The biggest problem however is the tab bar .
Personally i do n't like having new tabs open in the middle of the bar , screwing up the ordering , but it was easy to find an extension to fix that behavior .
However if you open up a lot of tabs they just get smaller and smaller until you ca n't see what each of them is anymore .
And to my further frustration there 's no way to access a list of the tabs .
There are a couple extensions that offer some kind of tab index , but nothing that presents a simple list like in Firefox .
After a little searching i found out the reason for these problems in a Chromium blog post .
[ chromium.org ] The designers are approaching the UI design from a heavily aesthetic angle .
Which is good in theory , but they 're also being fanatical about it .
If they do n't think a feature is aesthetically correct but ca n't think of a more aesthetically pleasing way to implement it they just wo n't implement the feature at all , even though they admit that the lack of that feature causes usability problems !
And to wrap it all up , they say " In all of these areas we 've resisted adding options to control behavior .
Keeping our set of options minimal is a good forcing function for us as user interface designers to come up with the right approach , since we never rely on the crutch of making the user decide what we were unable to .
" Well i hate to tell you guys , but it does n't seem to be working really well as a " forcing function " given that you 've crippled an important part of the UI while dithering about what the " best " way to implement it is .
The blog post was made a year ago and they apparently still have n't found a solution !
And i find it very aggravating that they feel once they 've come up with the " right " approach they do n't want to provide options to do it any other way .
Clearly if the user has a different aesthetic sense than the designer then the user is wrong !
I 've dealt with designers like this on projects before , and trying to convince them that the users can legitimately have a different opinion is a very frustrating task .
I remember the painful process of Firefox developers trying to get their tab bar into a useful state under similar circumstances .
Perhaps their solution is n't 100 \ % aesthetically appealing to the Chrome designers , but it undeniably \ _works \ _ , and leaving the users hanging while they try to figure out something more " aesthetically " and " spatially " pleasing seems like pure egotism to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Improving security is great, but they really need to keep working on usability as well!
I just installed Chrome for the first time yesterday and have been playing around with it.
It seems pretty speedy but the UI is a bit weird.
The lack of a title bar seems kind of weird.
I don't know what they were going for with that, but it's the only window on my entire machine and it stands out, and not in a good way.
At one point i tried adding a new tab while waiting for visual studio to start a debug session, and the UI hung up for a little bit, and for a few brief seconds Chrome acquired a title bar.
I actually thought it looked better that way.
A couple minor aesthetic gripes.
I may eventually get used to having the tab bar above the toolbar, though currently it seems pretty funky to me.
I haven't done a side-by-side comparison with Firefox yet, but my initial rough estimates seem to be that Chrome uses at least 75\% as much memory as Firefox, possibly more, and at least as much virtual memory.
I find the fact that Chrome has about 40 process running right now to be rather awkward, but hopefully it at least means that when i start closing large numbers of tabs that the memory will actually be released (unlike Firefox.
)

The biggest problem however is the tab bar.
Personally i don't like having new tabs open in the middle of the bar, screwing up the ordering, but it was easy to find an extension to fix that behavior.
However if you open up a lot of tabs they just get smaller and smaller until you can't see what each of them is anymore.
And to my further frustration there's no way to access a list of the tabs.
There are a couple extensions that offer some kind of tab index, but nothing that presents a simple list like in Firefox.
After a little searching i found out the reason for these problems in a Chromium blog post.
[chromium.org] The designers are approaching the UI design from a heavily aesthetic angle.
Which is good in theory, but they're also being fanatical about it.
If they don't think a feature is aesthetically correct but can't think of a more aesthetically pleasing way to implement it they just won't implement the feature at all, even though they admit that the lack of that feature causes usability problems!
And to wrap it all up, they say "In all of these areas we've resisted adding options to control behavior.
Keeping our set of options minimal is a good forcing function for us as user interface designers to come up with the right approach, since we never rely on the crutch of making the user decide what we were unable to.
"

Well i hate to tell you guys, but it doesn't seem to be working really well as a "forcing function" given that you've crippled an important part of the UI while dithering about what the "best" way to implement it is.
The blog post was made a year ago and they apparently still haven't found a solution!
And i find it very aggravating that they feel once they've come up with the "right" approach they don't want to provide options to do it any other way.
Clearly if the user has a different aesthetic sense than the designer then the user is wrong!
I've dealt with designers like this on projects before, and trying to convince them that the users can legitimately have a different opinion is a very frustrating task.
I remember the painful process of Firefox developers trying to get their tab bar into a useful state under similar circumstances.
Perhaps their solution isn't 100\% aesthetically appealing to the Chrome designers, but it undeniably \_works\_, and leaving the users hanging while they try to figure out something more "aesthetically" and "spatially" pleasing seems like pure egotism to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947642</id>
	<title>Re:Stay classy /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264766700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope the submitter realized that the only reason MS even bothered with any of this is thanks to them getting an ass pounding over the last few years for not giving a shit about security. Your welcome MS drones.</p></div><p>MS have never got the 'ass pounding' their security record has earned. If the security problems they cause cost them just 1\% of what they cost their customers they would be bankrupt fairly quickly.</p><p>Software is weird, where else would you not be responsible for the faults in the products you sell?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope the submitter realized that the only reason MS even bothered with any of this is thanks to them getting an ass pounding over the last few years for not giving a shit about security .
Your welcome MS drones.MS have never got the 'ass pounding ' their security record has earned .
If the security problems they cause cost them just 1 \ % of what they cost their customers they would be bankrupt fairly quickly.Software is weird , where else would you not be responsible for the faults in the products you sell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope the submitter realized that the only reason MS even bothered with any of this is thanks to them getting an ass pounding over the last few years for not giving a shit about security.
Your welcome MS drones.MS have never got the 'ass pounding' their security record has earned.
If the security problems they cause cost them just 1\% of what they cost their customers they would be bankrupt fairly quickly.Software is weird, where else would you not be responsible for the faults in the products you sell?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947468</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264763820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thanks for adding the security features to Chrome, developers at Google.  That is all.</p></div><p>that's just plain ridiculous</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for adding the security features to Chrome , developers at Google .
That is all.that 's just plain ridiculous</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for adding the security features to Chrome, developers at Google.
That is all.that's just plain ridiculous
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949892</id>
	<title>Does it install in 'program files', on Windows?</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1264782900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone tell me whether it finally installs in 'program files', on Windows XP? I haven't been able to find a way with the previous versions, and this is my only hurdle to installing it on my work PC due to the anti-virus rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone tell me whether it finally installs in 'program files ' , on Windows XP ?
I have n't been able to find a way with the previous versions , and this is my only hurdle to installing it on my work PC due to the anti-virus rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone tell me whether it finally installs in 'program files', on Windows XP?
I haven't been able to find a way with the previous versions, and this is my only hurdle to installing it on my work PC due to the anti-virus rules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947920</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-site scripting</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1264770840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are going to use Access-Control-Allow-Origin you should probably be aware that it is very new, and many browsers out there do not support it. Firefox added it in version 3.5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are going to use Access-Control-Allow-Origin you should probably be aware that it is very new , and many browsers out there do not support it .
Firefox added it in version 3.5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are going to use Access-Control-Allow-Origin you should probably be aware that it is very new, and many browsers out there do not support it.
Firefox added it in version 3.5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948414</id>
	<title>Re:Ads</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1264775400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, then, I guess that means Chrome is ready for the internet, huh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , then , I guess that means Chrome is ready for the internet , huh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, then, I guess that means Chrome is ready for the internet, huh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947024</id>
	<title>Gayfield Penishands - The Movie! Soon at IMDB.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264757520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>G4yfield P3nishands is a touching film about a 29 year old g4y emo man, with long p3nises for fingers. In the tradition of Edward scissorhands, we bring you:</p><p>G4yfield P3nishands</p><p>Watch as G4yfield stumbles around in his world where his p3nis fingers get him in all sorts of michief. With every simple sneeze, volcanic mayonnayse storms erupt.</p><p>Will G4yfield P3nishands live a fruitful life? Is he to find love?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>G4yfield P3nishands is a touching film about a 29 year old g4y emo man , with long p3nises for fingers .
In the tradition of Edward scissorhands , we bring you : G4yfield P3nishandsWatch as G4yfield stumbles around in his world where his p3nis fingers get him in all sorts of michief .
With every simple sneeze , volcanic mayonnayse storms erupt.Will G4yfield P3nishands live a fruitful life ?
Is he to find love ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>G4yfield P3nishands is a touching film about a 29 year old g4y emo man, with long p3nises for fingers.
In the tradition of Edward scissorhands, we bring you:G4yfield P3nishandsWatch as G4yfield stumbles around in his world where his p3nis fingers get him in all sorts of michief.
With every simple sneeze, volcanic mayonnayse storms erupt.Will G4yfield P3nishands live a fruitful life?
Is he to find love?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948110</id>
	<title>bit34</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>formed his own company a 2 I know i7 sux0rs, survey which [idge.net] things 1n YOU CAN. WHEN THE</htmltext>
<tokenext>formed his own company a 2 I know i7 sux0rs , survey which [ idge.net ] things 1n YOU CAN .
WHEN THE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>formed his own company a 2 I know i7 sux0rs, survey which [idge.net] things 1n YOU CAN.
WHEN THE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947996</id>
	<title>Chromium blog post on the new security features</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264771680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2010/01/security-in-depth-new-security-features.html" title="chromium.org" rel="nofollow">Chromium blog post on the new security features</a> [chromium.org], some of which are rather interesting</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chromium blog post on the new security features [ chromium.org ] , some of which are rather interesting</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chromium blog post on the new security features [chromium.org], some of which are rather interesting</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947884</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1264770240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope this new Chrome  security works on the clickjacking on google's own SERPs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this new Chrome security works on the clickjacking on google 's own SERPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this new Chrome  security works on the clickjacking on google's own SERPs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947898</id>
	<title>Re:Ads</title>
	<author>Ranzear</author>
	<datestamp>1264770480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're easily a month behind on this.

<a href="href" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">https://chrome.google.com/extensions</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're easily a month behind on this .
https : //chrome.google.com/extensions [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're easily a month behind on this.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947872</id>
	<title>Adblock works fine in Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264770000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have Adblock and a ton of other extensions working just fine in Chrome. Just use the testing / developer streams which have plugin support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Adblock and a ton of other extensions working just fine in Chrome .
Just use the testing / developer streams which have plugin support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Adblock and a ton of other extensions working just fine in Chrome.
Just use the testing / developer streams which have plugin support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948398</id>
	<title>Re:but what about jQuery?</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1264775280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does not affect that in any way whatosever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does not affect that in any way whatosever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does not affect that in any way whatosever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949532</id>
	<title>Re:but what about jQuery?</title>
	<author>WiFiBro</author>
	<datestamp>1264781280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume (danger!) that they are only looking for XSS in the GET, POST and COOKIE input.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume ( danger !
) that they are only looking for XSS in the GET , POST and COOKIE input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume (danger!
) that they are only looking for XSS in the GET, POST and COOKIE input.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30952962</id>
	<title>Chrome 4?</title>
	<author>anexkahn</author>
	<datestamp>1264794000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By this time next year we will be on Chrome Version 17!</htmltext>
<tokenext>By this time next year we will be on Chrome Version 17 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this time next year we will be on Chrome Version 17!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30950588</id>
	<title>No thanks, no more Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1264785540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stopped using Chrome.  It comes from a supplier that sees privacy as a problem, and I don't feel I have enough control over what it does with the information it gains from my surfing - that's also why I don't use Google DNS.  I also have no idea how to switch the "referrer" information off (in FF that's quite easy).</p><p>So, personally I don't give a damn what Chrome (or any other Google app) does.  I prefer FF, even when I switch to OSX later this year (yes, I'm switching control freaks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-))..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped using Chrome .
It comes from a supplier that sees privacy as a problem , and I do n't feel I have enough control over what it does with the information it gains from my surfing - that 's also why I do n't use Google DNS .
I also have no idea how to switch the " referrer " information off ( in FF that 's quite easy ) .So , personally I do n't give a damn what Chrome ( or any other Google app ) does .
I prefer FF , even when I switch to OSX later this year ( yes , I 'm switching control freaks : - ) ) . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped using Chrome.
It comes from a supplier that sees privacy as a problem, and I don't feel I have enough control over what it does with the information it gains from my surfing - that's also why I don't use Google DNS.
I also have no idea how to switch the "referrer" information off (in FF that's quite easy).So, personally I don't give a damn what Chrome (or any other Google app) does.
I prefer FF, even when I switch to OSX later this year (yes, I'm switching control freaks :-))..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30953778</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome Apes? Moronic Monkies?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264797900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define\%3A+ape" title="google.co.uk">http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define\%3A+ape</a> [google.co.uk] <p><div class="quote"><p># any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all<br>
<b># imitate uncritically and in every aspect; "Her little brother apes her behavior"</b> <br>
<b># copycat: someone who copies the words or behavior of another</b> <br>
<b># caricature: represent in or produce a caricature of; "The drawing caricatured the President"</b> <br>
# anthropoid: person who resembles a nonhuman primate</p> </div><p>You can thank me for the free English lesson later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.co.uk/search ? q = define \ % 3A + ape [ google.co.uk ] # any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all # imitate uncritically and in every aspect ; " Her little brother apes her behavior " # copycat : someone who copies the words or behavior of another # caricature : represent in or produce a caricature of ; " The drawing caricatured the President " # anthropoid : person who resembles a nonhuman primate You can thank me for the free English lesson later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define\%3A+ape [google.co.uk] # any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all
# imitate uncritically and in every aspect; "Her little brother apes her behavior" 
# copycat: someone who copies the words or behavior of another 
# caricature: represent in or produce a caricature of; "The drawing caricatured the President" 
# anthropoid: person who resembles a nonhuman primate You can thank me for the free English lesson later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948140</id>
	<title>Off topic: In regards to the facebook icon...</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1264772700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and the twitter icon as well, appearing on every story and <b>even on my own journal</b>:</p><p>fuck off Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and the twitter icon as well , appearing on every story and even on my own journal : fuck off Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and the twitter icon as well, appearing on every story and even on my own journal:fuck off Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947208</id>
	<title>Powerful M2TS Converter</title>
	<author>johnismile</author>
	<datestamp>1264760040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi, do you want to convert your M2TS files created by your Sony Camcorder and enjoy them on your Mobile Phone? With this powerful <a href="http://www.m2tsconverterreviews.com/" title="m2tsconverterreviews.com" rel="nofollow"> M2TS  Converter</a> [m2tsconverterreviews.com] to convert <a href="http://www.m2tsconverterreviews.com/m2ts-to-mp4.html" title="m2tsconverterreviews.com" rel="nofollow"> m2ts to mp4</a> [m2tsconverterreviews.com]
Really nice software, just have a try now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , do you want to convert your M2TS files created by your Sony Camcorder and enjoy them on your Mobile Phone ?
With this powerful M2TS Converter [ m2tsconverterreviews.com ] to convert m2ts to mp4 [ m2tsconverterreviews.com ] Really nice software , just have a try now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, do you want to convert your M2TS files created by your Sony Camcorder and enjoy them on your Mobile Phone?
With this powerful  M2TS  Converter [m2tsconverterreviews.com] to convert  m2ts to mp4 [m2tsconverterreviews.com]
Really nice software, just have a try now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949676</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264781940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. The only people I want stealing my personal data are the good folks at Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
The only people I want stealing my personal data are the good folks at Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
The only people I want stealing my personal data are the good folks at Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30952808</id>
	<title>Re:Stay classy /.</title>
	<author>forgottenusername</author>
	<datestamp>1264793340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Locking your front door and window is merely a deterrent to your fairly normal, average civilized person. It's illusionary security, a social construct that says "hey, this is private, keep out". Same thing with passwords on accounts and firewalls.</p><p>Software is held to lofty standards because people don't understand it and blindly have faith in OS vendors, AV vendors etc to magically keep them safe. So when those software companies fail to protect them from threats they don't even really understand they get angry as only ignorant people who got duped can get<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Locking your front door and window is merely a deterrent to your fairly normal , average civilized person .
It 's illusionary security , a social construct that says " hey , this is private , keep out " .
Same thing with passwords on accounts and firewalls.Software is held to lofty standards because people do n't understand it and blindly have faith in OS vendors , AV vendors etc to magically keep them safe .
So when those software companies fail to protect them from threats they do n't even really understand they get angry as only ignorant people who got duped can get ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Locking your front door and window is merely a deterrent to your fairly normal, average civilized person.
It's illusionary security, a social construct that says "hey, this is private, keep out".
Same thing with passwords on accounts and firewalls.Software is held to lofty standards because people don't understand it and blindly have faith in OS vendors, AV vendors etc to magically keep them safe.
So when those software companies fail to protect them from threats they don't even really understand they get angry as only ignorant people who got duped can get ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947156</id>
	<title>Stay classy /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few potentially good ideas somehow changes a decade of standards abuse and generally shitty security? I hope the submitter realized that the only reason MS even bothered with any of this is thanks to them getting an ass pounding over the last few years for not giving a shit about security. Your welcome MS drones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few potentially good ideas somehow changes a decade of standards abuse and generally shitty security ?
I hope the submitter realized that the only reason MS even bothered with any of this is thanks to them getting an ass pounding over the last few years for not giving a shit about security .
Your welcome MS drones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few potentially good ideas somehow changes a decade of standards abuse and generally shitty security?
I hope the submitter realized that the only reason MS even bothered with any of this is thanks to them getting an ass pounding over the last few years for not giving a shit about security.
Your welcome MS drones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947716</id>
	<title>What's the need for all this security stuff...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264767900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when Google goes ahead, tracks your every move, and sells it to the same crooks anyway?</p><p>(Not trolling here. As far as I heard, Google <em>does</em> track everything. And as far as I know, Google <em>does</em> sell that information to advertisers as its main business. Finally, as far as I know, those advertisers include all those spamming crooks and their friends.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when Google goes ahead , tracks your every move , and sells it to the same crooks anyway ?
( Not trolling here .
As far as I heard , Google does track everything .
And as far as I know , Google does sell that information to advertisers as its main business .
Finally , as far as I know , those advertisers include all those spamming crooks and their friends .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when Google goes ahead, tracks your every move, and sells it to the same crooks anyway?
(Not trolling here.
As far as I heard, Google does track everything.
And as far as I know, Google does sell that information to advertisers as its main business.
Finally, as far as I know, those advertisers include all those spamming crooks and their friends.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30954092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30951600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30953778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30967690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0358229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30946958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30953778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30967690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30951600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30954092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30948222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30952870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0358229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30947642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949158
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30952808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0358229.30949580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
