<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_29_171208</id>
	<title>Google To Pay $500 For Bugs Found In Chromium</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264754460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Trailrunner7 writes to mention that a new program from Google could pay security researchers <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2010/01/encouraging-more-chromium-security.html">$500 for every security bug found in Chromium</a>.  Of course if you find a particularly clever bug you could be eligible for a $1337 reward.  <i>"Today, we are introducing an experimental new incentive for external researchers to participate. We will be rewarding select interesting and original vulnerabilities reported to us by the security research community. For existing contributors to Chromium security &mdash; who would likely continue to contribute regardless &mdash; this may be seen as a token of our appreciation. In addition, we are hoping that the introduction of this program will encourage new individuals to participate in Chromium security. The more people involved in scrutinizing Chromium's code and behavior, the more secure our millions of users will be.  Such a concept is not new; we'd like to give serious kudos to the folks at Mozilla for their long-running and successful vulnerability reward program."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trailrunner7 writes to mention that a new program from Google could pay security researchers $ 500 for every security bug found in Chromium .
Of course if you find a particularly clever bug you could be eligible for a $ 1337 reward .
" Today , we are introducing an experimental new incentive for external researchers to participate .
We will be rewarding select interesting and original vulnerabilities reported to us by the security research community .
For existing contributors to Chromium security    who would likely continue to contribute regardless    this may be seen as a token of our appreciation .
In addition , we are hoping that the introduction of this program will encourage new individuals to participate in Chromium security .
The more people involved in scrutinizing Chromium 's code and behavior , the more secure our millions of users will be .
Such a concept is not new ; we 'd like to give serious kudos to the folks at Mozilla for their long-running and successful vulnerability reward program .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trailrunner7 writes to mention that a new program from Google could pay security researchers $500 for every security bug found in Chromium.
Of course if you find a particularly clever bug you could be eligible for a $1337 reward.
"Today, we are introducing an experimental new incentive for external researchers to participate.
We will be rewarding select interesting and original vulnerabilities reported to us by the security research community.
For existing contributors to Chromium security — who would likely continue to contribute regardless — this may be seen as a token of our appreciation.
In addition, we are hoping that the introduction of this program will encourage new individuals to participate in Chromium security.
The more people involved in scrutinizing Chromium's code and behavior, the more secure our millions of users will be.
Such a concept is not new; we'd like to give serious kudos to the folks at Mozilla for their long-running and successful vulnerability reward program.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954790</id>
	<title>$25,750,000,000!!!</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264758780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So If I'm on Chromium right now...<br><a href="http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=Bug&amp;gbv=2&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=" title="google.ca">Awesome</a> [google.ca] Averaging 1 bug per picture (some with multiple, some without), at 500 dollars each...</p><p>I'll take my 25 Billion billion please. Keep the change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So If I 'm on Chromium right now...Awesome [ google.ca ] Averaging 1 bug per picture ( some with multiple , some without ) , at 500 dollars each...I 'll take my 25 Billion billion please .
Keep the change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So If I'm on Chromium right now...Awesome [google.ca] Averaging 1 bug per picture (some with multiple, some without), at 500 dollars each...I'll take my 25 Billion billion please.
Keep the change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954822</id>
	<title>If Microsoft did this for Windows...</title>
	<author>jgagnon</author>
	<datestamp>1264758840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'd have a 100\% market share and be out of business.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd have a 100 \ % market share and be out of business .
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd have a 100\% market share and be out of business.
:p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955722</id>
	<title>Chrome phone home</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264762440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* release software that "phone home"<br>* pay people to report security flaws<br>* ?<br>* !profit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* release software that " phone home " * pay people to report security flaws * ?
* ! profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* release software that "phone home"* pay people to report security flaws* ?
* !profit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955458</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264761360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The idea being that once more and more bugs are discovered, the number of bugs left to discover will diminish</p></div><p>That hypothesis only holds true if the source code to Chromium is never updated. Ever. For any reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea being that once more and more bugs are discovered , the number of bugs left to discover will diminishThat hypothesis only holds true if the source code to Chromium is never updated .
Ever. For any reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea being that once more and more bugs are discovered, the number of bugs left to discover will diminishThat hypothesis only holds true if the source code to Chromium is never updated.
Ever. For any reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955064</id>
	<title>Re:$25,750,000,000!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Billy-uns and billy-uns and billy-uns......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Billy-uns and billy-uns and billy-uns..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billy-uns and billy-uns and billy-uns......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955502</id>
	<title>$500573</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1264761540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And $500573 for a serious security bug?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And $ 500573 for a serious security bug ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And $500573 for a serious security bug?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956440</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>thsths</author>
	<datestamp>1264765440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4b) fraudster comes round and beats you up</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4b ) fraudster comes round and beats you up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4b) fraudster comes round and beats you up</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955434</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1264761240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of the motivation, I'm not so sure it's a good idea to essentially add value to the black market for security exploits while simultaneously providing an inventive for contributors to add security bugs.  They're really just raising the floor value of any given exploit to $500.  Now if they were to offer a reward in excess of the level required to remain profitable through the exploitation of security holes (and it's anyone's guess what that value might be) then that might have some effect, but of course it would also increase the incentive for insider shenanigans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of the motivation , I 'm not so sure it 's a good idea to essentially add value to the black market for security exploits while simultaneously providing an inventive for contributors to add security bugs .
They 're really just raising the floor value of any given exploit to $ 500 .
Now if they were to offer a reward in excess of the level required to remain profitable through the exploitation of security holes ( and it 's anyone 's guess what that value might be ) then that might have some effect , but of course it would also increase the incentive for insider shenanigans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of the motivation, I'm not so sure it's a good idea to essentially add value to the black market for security exploits while simultaneously providing an inventive for contributors to add security bugs.
They're really just raising the floor value of any given exploit to $500.
Now if they were to offer a reward in excess of the level required to remain profitable through the exploitation of security holes (and it's anyone's guess what that value might be) then that might have some effect, but of course it would also increase the incentive for insider shenanigans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959396</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>lakeland</author>
	<datestamp>1264786320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps...</p><p>Think what having a framed check of $1337 from Google to you would do for your career, or on your CV "Awarded a prize by Google for finding security flaws", or perhaps "One of only 7 people worldwide awarded a prize by Google for finding bugs in their software".  You get the drift...</p><p>The money only needs to be enough that people will not dismiss it as a joke prize - I doubt any recipient will actually cash the check.</p><p>cf Knuth's prizes for bugs in TeX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps...Think what having a framed check of $ 1337 from Google to you would do for your career , or on your CV " Awarded a prize by Google for finding security flaws " , or perhaps " One of only 7 people worldwide awarded a prize by Google for finding bugs in their software " .
You get the drift...The money only needs to be enough that people will not dismiss it as a joke prize - I doubt any recipient will actually cash the check.cf Knuth 's prizes for bugs in TeX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps...Think what having a framed check of $1337 from Google to you would do for your career, or on your CV "Awarded a prize by Google for finding security flaws", or perhaps "One of only 7 people worldwide awarded a prize by Google for finding bugs in their software".
You get the drift...The money only needs to be enough that people will not dismiss it as a joke prize - I doubt any recipient will actually cash the check.cf Knuth's prizes for bugs in TeX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957784</id>
	<title>Re:dilbert</title>
	<author>serbanp</author>
	<datestamp>1264772520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What Google forgot to mention is that each reward will be subtracted from the paycheck of the developer who wrote the offending code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What Google forgot to mention is that each reward will be subtracted from the paycheck of the developer who wrote the offending code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Google forgot to mention is that each reward will be subtracted from the paycheck of the developer who wrote the offending code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955460</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264761360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>paying a company would cost them $15000 and they wouldn't be sure to get the bugs found.<br>researching for $500 sure isn't worth doing it, unless you just find one by luck. you might also attract teenagers who sometimes get access to private exploits to make a quick $500 legally.<br>finally, you get a publicity stunt saying you're so secure and all (but in fact, it's just that not enough people care about your product yet)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>paying a company would cost them $ 15000 and they would n't be sure to get the bugs found.researching for $ 500 sure is n't worth doing it , unless you just find one by luck .
you might also attract teenagers who sometimes get access to private exploits to make a quick $ 500 legally.finally , you get a publicity stunt saying you 're so secure and all ( but in fact , it 's just that not enough people care about your product yet )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>paying a company would cost them $15000 and they wouldn't be sure to get the bugs found.researching for $500 sure isn't worth doing it, unless you just find one by luck.
you might also attract teenagers who sometimes get access to private exploits to make a quick $500 legally.finally, you get a publicity stunt saying you're so secure and all (but in fact, it's just that not enough people care about your product yet)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778</id>
	<title>Here's an idea!</title>
	<author>rehtonAesoohC</author>
	<datestamp>1264758720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they should really do is up the dollar amount by a small margin every time someone finds a bug and is rewarded - maybe on a logarithmic curve?<br> <br>The idea being that once more and more bugs are discovered, the number of bugs left to discover will diminish, and people will have less incentive to find bugs, even though major flaws may still exist in some form. So the one person who finds the whopper of a bug five years from now could get $100,000...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they should really do is up the dollar amount by a small margin every time someone finds a bug and is rewarded - maybe on a logarithmic curve ?
The idea being that once more and more bugs are discovered , the number of bugs left to discover will diminish , and people will have less incentive to find bugs , even though major flaws may still exist in some form .
So the one person who finds the whopper of a bug five years from now could get $ 100,000.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they should really do is up the dollar amount by a small margin every time someone finds a bug and is rewarded - maybe on a logarithmic curve?
The idea being that once more and more bugs are discovered, the number of bugs left to discover will diminish, and people will have less incentive to find bugs, even though major flaws may still exist in some form.
So the one person who finds the whopper of a bug five years from now could get $100,000...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956728</id>
	<title>Re:Why tell when you can exploit?</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1264766700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all of us are as immoral as you are I suppose. Was this statement too obvious for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all of us are as immoral as you are I suppose .
Was this statement too obvious for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all of us are as immoral as you are I suppose.
Was this statement too obvious for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956822</id>
	<title>Re:google just does everything different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264767240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, Netscape did something similar. In 1995.</p><p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/19970614002944/http://home.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease48.html" title="archive.org" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/19970614002944/http://home.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease48.html</a> [archive.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , Netscape did something similar .
In 1995.http : //web.archive.org/web/19970614002944/http : //home.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease48.html [ archive.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, Netscape did something similar.
In 1995.http://web.archive.org/web/19970614002944/http://home.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease48.html [archive.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955572</id>
	<title>Find a bug, win a Bug?</title>
	<author>sfjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1264761720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the "Find a bug, win a Bug" promotion from Hunter &amp; Ready Systems in the 1980s for their real-time operating system kernel.<br>Never met anyone who won a Volkswagen, though...<br>Google: Want to pony (or beetle) up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the " Find a bug , win a Bug " promotion from Hunter &amp; Ready Systems in the 1980s for their real-time operating system kernel.Never met anyone who won a Volkswagen , though...Google : Want to pony ( or beetle ) up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the "Find a bug, win a Bug" promotion from Hunter &amp; Ready Systems in the 1980s for their real-time operating system kernel.Never met anyone who won a Volkswagen, though...Google: Want to pony (or beetle) up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956122</id>
	<title>Re:google just does everything different</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1264764180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.</i> </p><p>Here's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies <a href="http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/1998/12/0057.html" title="jammed.com">in 1998</a> [jammed.com].  Point #3 is probably most salient in this case, but Chromium isn't open source, so the first two are still valid.</p></div><p>Totally different. Schneier is talking about putting up money to "prove" that a given product has no bugs. Google is smart enough to know that every product has bugs, and is just giving an incentive for people to find them (or more likely, for the finders to report them.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear , it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry .
Here 's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies in 1998 [ jammed.com ] .
Point # 3 is probably most salient in this case , but Chromium is n't open source , so the first two are still valid.Totally different .
Schneier is talking about putting up money to " prove " that a given product has no bugs .
Google is smart enough to know that every product has bugs , and is just giving an incentive for people to find them ( or more likely , for the finders to report them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.
Here's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies in 1998 [jammed.com].
Point #3 is probably most salient in this case, but Chromium isn't open source, so the first two are still valid.Totally different.
Schneier is talking about putting up money to "prove" that a given product has no bugs.
Google is smart enough to know that every product has bugs, and is just giving an incentive for people to find them (or more likely, for the finders to report them.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954612</id>
	<title>No adblock plus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$500 please</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 500 please</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$500 please</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456</id>
	<title>Re:google just does everything different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264761360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.</i></p><p>Here's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies <a href="http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/1998/12/0057.html" title="jammed.com">in 1998</a> [jammed.com].  Point #3 is probably most salient in this case, but Chromium isn't open source, so the first two are still valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear , it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.Here 's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies in 1998 [ jammed.com ] .
Point # 3 is probably most salient in this case , but Chromium is n't open source , so the first two are still valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.Here's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies in 1998 [jammed.com].
Point #3 is probably most salient in this case, but Chromium isn't open source, so the first two are still valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954710</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to decrease the signal to noise ratio of bug reports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to decrease the signal to noise ratio of bug reports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to decrease the signal to noise ratio of bug reports.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956598</id>
	<title>microsoft has same bug payout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264766100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that how bill gates got his billions</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that how bill gates got his billions</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that how bill gates got his billions</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957802</id>
	<title>dontgetshocked</title>
	<author>dontgetshocked</author>
	<datestamp>1264772640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is cool, nothing quite like some good old cash to help motivate a person.Also it shows a real interest in there product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is cool , nothing quite like some good old cash to help motivate a person.Also it shows a real interest in there product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is cool, nothing quite like some good old cash to help motivate a person.Also it shows a real interest in there product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956032</id>
	<title>Not applicable.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264763820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These don't really apply as:<br>1) this isn't a 'contest' but a reward for reporting flaws<br>2) they are doing this to find/fix flaws, not demonstrate how 'uncrackable' they are</p><p>This, to me, seems the right way to do things:<br>1) show your code<br>2) ask people to look at it<br>3) provide incentive for finding/reporting flaws<br>4) fix these flaws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These do n't really apply as : 1 ) this is n't a 'contest ' but a reward for reporting flaws2 ) they are doing this to find/fix flaws , not demonstrate how 'uncrackable ' they areThis , to me , seems the right way to do things : 1 ) show your code2 ) ask people to look at it3 ) provide incentive for finding/reporting flaws4 ) fix these flaws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These don't really apply as:1) this isn't a 'contest' but a reward for reporting flaws2) they are doing this to find/fix flaws, not demonstrate how 'uncrackable' they areThis, to me, seems the right way to do things:1) show your code2) ask people to look at it3) provide incentive for finding/reporting flaws4) fix these flaws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959026</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>michaelhood</author>
	<datestamp>1264782480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$500 (or even $1337) seems a bit low to encourage a would be criminal to go legit with some clever zero day, rather than exploit it. And, if it isn't now, it will be as Chrome's user base increases.</p></div><p>No 'would-be criminal' is going to come forward to claim this stuff, it's not worth the effort. It's likely targeted at users like me who have stumbled upon potential exploits in the past but couldn't justify investing a day or more writing a PoC, submitting it and hoping someone would read it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 500 ( or even $ 1337 ) seems a bit low to encourage a would be criminal to go legit with some clever zero day , rather than exploit it .
And , if it is n't now , it will be as Chrome 's user base increases.No 'would-be criminal ' is going to come forward to claim this stuff , it 's not worth the effort .
It 's likely targeted at users like me who have stumbled upon potential exploits in the past but could n't justify investing a day or more writing a PoC , submitting it and hoping someone would read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$500 (or even $1337) seems a bit low to encourage a would be criminal to go legit with some clever zero day, rather than exploit it.
And, if it isn't now, it will be as Chrome's user base increases.No 'would-be criminal' is going to come forward to claim this stuff, it's not worth the effort.
It's likely targeted at users like me who have stumbled upon potential exploits in the past but couldn't justify investing a day or more writing a PoC, submitting it and hoping someone would read it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955864</id>
	<title>Not so new</title>
	<author>orient</author>
	<datestamp>1264763220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Today, we are introducing an experimental new incentive for external researchers to participate."</p></div><p>D. J. Bernstein did the same thing in 1997, offering a reward for finding bugs in qmail: <a href="http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html" title="cr.yp.to" rel="nofollow">http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html</a> [cr.yp.to]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Today , we are introducing an experimental new incentive for external researchers to participate. " D .
J. Bernstein did the same thing in 1997 , offering a reward for finding bugs in qmail : http : //cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html [ cr.yp.to ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Today, we are introducing an experimental new incentive for external researchers to participate."D.
J. Bernstein did the same thing in 1997, offering a reward for finding bugs in qmail: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html [cr.yp.to]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958098</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea!</title>
	<author>malakai</author>
	<datestamp>1264774740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an incentive for people to not share the bugs they find until the bounty is high enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an incentive for people to not share the bugs they find until the bounty is high enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an incentive for people to not share the bugs they find until the bounty is high enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1264760220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>$500 (or even $1337) seems a bit low to encourage a would be criminal to go legit with some clever zero day, rather than exploit it. And, if it isn't now, it will be as Chrome's user base increases. For that reason, I'm assuming that they are offering this as a mixture of publicity stunt and goodwill/attention attracting measure for security researchers(ie. $500 won't buy very much time from somebody who really knows their shit about programming and security. If, though, you are either going to spend your day doing mean things to Flash or mean things to Chrome, why not go for the beer money).<br> <br>

If those are indeed the motivations, it would seem highly counterproductive for them to be dicks about paying out. If they do, their good publicity will swiftly dissipate after a couple of "Google promises cash for bugs, weasels out" articles, and researchers who might otherwise care will probably just get fed up with fighting verbal technicalities and post to some open disclosure site instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 500 ( or even $ 1337 ) seems a bit low to encourage a would be criminal to go legit with some clever zero day , rather than exploit it .
And , if it is n't now , it will be as Chrome 's user base increases .
For that reason , I 'm assuming that they are offering this as a mixture of publicity stunt and goodwill/attention attracting measure for security researchers ( ie .
$ 500 wo n't buy very much time from somebody who really knows their shit about programming and security .
If , though , you are either going to spend your day doing mean things to Flash or mean things to Chrome , why not go for the beer money ) .
If those are indeed the motivations , it would seem highly counterproductive for them to be dicks about paying out .
If they do , their good publicity will swiftly dissipate after a couple of " Google promises cash for bugs , weasels out " articles , and researchers who might otherwise care will probably just get fed up with fighting verbal technicalities and post to some open disclosure site instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$500 (or even $1337) seems a bit low to encourage a would be criminal to go legit with some clever zero day, rather than exploit it.
And, if it isn't now, it will be as Chrome's user base increases.
For that reason, I'm assuming that they are offering this as a mixture of publicity stunt and goodwill/attention attracting measure for security researchers(ie.
$500 won't buy very much time from somebody who really knows their shit about programming and security.
If, though, you are either going to spend your day doing mean things to Flash or mean things to Chrome, why not go for the beer money).
If those are indeed the motivations, it would seem highly counterproductive for them to be dicks about paying out.
If they do, their good publicity will swiftly dissipate after a couple of "Google promises cash for bugs, weasels out" articles, and researchers who might otherwise care will probably just get fed up with fighting verbal technicalities and post to some open disclosure site instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955402</id>
	<title>Not worth it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264761120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are willing to pay $10 000 for such bugs.</p><p>So.. let's say, the evil google pays you $500..<br>The evil chinese pays you $10 000</p><p>easy choice i say. in fact, researching a critical vulnerability for $500 on such a big project (= its audited so the search is hard), certainly is a waste of your time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are willing to pay $ 10 000 for such bugs.So.. let 's say , the evil google pays you $ 500..The evil chinese pays you $ 10 000easy choice i say .
in fact , researching a critical vulnerability for $ 500 on such a big project ( = its audited so the search is hard ) , certainly is a waste of your time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are willing to pay $10 000 for such bugs.So.. let's say, the evil google pays you $500..The evil chinese pays you $10 000easy choice i say.
in fact, researching a critical vulnerability for $500 on such a big project (= its audited so the search is hard), certainly is a waste of your time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958672</id>
	<title>Re:No adblock plus</title>
	<author>jrbrtsn</author>
	<datestamp>1264779720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>AdBlock for Chrome! Blocks ads all over the web</b></p><p>I'm using it right now, and works as good as adblock+ in Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AdBlock for Chrome !
Blocks ads all over the webI 'm using it right now , and works as good as adblock + in Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AdBlock for Chrome!
Blocks ads all over the webI'm using it right now, and works as good as adblock+ in Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30961644</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264862040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact they are offering rewards for it and that no other competitor do can only be appreciated and approved. And to be frank, I doubt that monetizing a zero-day is as easy as you make it sound. You would have to quickly develop an exploit, sell it to the correct person, who may have more or less shady connections and an uncertain pay. On the other hand, Google offers $500, don't ask for a working exploit, is 100\% legal and also awards you a lot in reputation money.<br> <br>
There are also some people who would never sell an exploit to criminals. Today they have no way to be rewarded if they signal a bug. It is good that they can be rewarded. IMO, if Microsoft had done this a few years ago, the world of computer security may have been totally different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact they are offering rewards for it and that no other competitor do can only be appreciated and approved .
And to be frank , I doubt that monetizing a zero-day is as easy as you make it sound .
You would have to quickly develop an exploit , sell it to the correct person , who may have more or less shady connections and an uncertain pay .
On the other hand , Google offers $ 500 , do n't ask for a working exploit , is 100 \ % legal and also awards you a lot in reputation money .
There are also some people who would never sell an exploit to criminals .
Today they have no way to be rewarded if they signal a bug .
It is good that they can be rewarded .
IMO , if Microsoft had done this a few years ago , the world of computer security may have been totally different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact they are offering rewards for it and that no other competitor do can only be appreciated and approved.
And to be frank, I doubt that monetizing a zero-day is as easy as you make it sound.
You would have to quickly develop an exploit, sell it to the correct person, who may have more or less shady connections and an uncertain pay.
On the other hand, Google offers $500, don't ask for a working exploit, is 100\% legal and also awards you a lot in reputation money.
There are also some people who would never sell an exploit to criminals.
Today they have no way to be rewarded if they signal a bug.
It is good that they can be rewarded.
IMO, if Microsoft had done this a few years ago, the world of computer security may have been totally different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954942</id>
	<title>dilbert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh.. Reminds me of the Dilbert strip where the company starts offering developers bonuses for fixing bugs.  Pretty soon lots of bugs start appearing, and developers suddenly start fixing lots of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh.. Reminds me of the Dilbert strip where the company starts offering developers bonuses for fixing bugs .
Pretty soon lots of bugs start appearing , and developers suddenly start fixing lots of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.. Reminds me of the Dilbert strip where the company starts offering developers bonuses for fixing bugs.
Pretty soon lots of bugs start appearing, and developers suddenly start fixing lots of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956260</id>
	<title>Google catches up to Netscape?</title>
	<author>vocatan</author>
	<datestamp>1264764780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Netscape used to offer a "bug Bounty" for issues reported --

xref article "BUGS BOUNTY By  Philip Elmer-DeWitt   Monday, Oct. 23, 1995 "

<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983604,00.html" title="time.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983604,00.html</a> [time.com]
"[...]Netscape last week began offering cash awards to anybody who can find a security hole in the beta, or test, version of its latest browser software. Under the so-called Bugs Bounty program, the first person to identify a "significant" security flaw wins $1,000. Lesser bugs earn smaller prizes ranging from $40 sweatshirts to $12 coffee mugs. The idea, explains a company spokesperson, is to get hackers to hack when it will do the Netscape some good--before the product is officially released.[...]"


So - given inflation, does this mean that the value of a bug has gone down over time - or was Netscape just paying way above market value?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>Netscape used to offer a " bug Bounty " for issues reported -- xref article " BUGS BOUNTY By Philip Elmer-DeWitt Monday , Oct. 23 , 1995 " http : //www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983604,00.html [ time.com ] " [ ... ] Netscape last week began offering cash awards to anybody who can find a security hole in the beta , or test , version of its latest browser software .
Under the so-called Bugs Bounty program , the first person to identify a " significant " security flaw wins $ 1,000 .
Lesser bugs earn smaller prizes ranging from $ 40 sweatshirts to $ 12 coffee mugs .
The idea , explains a company spokesperson , is to get hackers to hack when it will do the Netscape some good--before the product is officially released. [ .. .
] " So - given inflation , does this mean that the value of a bug has gone down over time - or was Netscape just paying way above market value ?
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netscape used to offer a "bug Bounty" for issues reported --

xref article "BUGS BOUNTY By  Philip Elmer-DeWitt   Monday, Oct. 23, 1995 "

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983604,00.html [time.com]
"[...]Netscape last week began offering cash awards to anybody who can find a security hole in the beta, or test, version of its latest browser software.
Under the so-called Bugs Bounty program, the first person to identify a "significant" security flaw wins $1,000.
Lesser bugs earn smaller prizes ranging from $40 sweatshirts to $12 coffee mugs.
The idea, explains a company spokesperson, is to get hackers to hack when it will do the Netscape some good--before the product is officially released.[...
]"


So - given inflation, does this mean that the value of a bug has gone down over time - or was Netscape just paying way above market value?
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955428</id>
	<title>A mental image is worth 10^3 words.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264761240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What is it with people and logarithms? You're posting on slashdot, you should know better!</i></p><p><i>The logarithm grows very *slowly*:</i></p><p><i>log(5) = 1.6<br>log(10) = 2.3<br>log(100) = 4.6<br>log(1000) = 6.9<br></i><br>Part of the problem may be that no-one looks at simple <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide\_rule" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">slide-rules</a> [wikipedia.org] or other graphic representations of logarithmic scales any more.  I'm no math genius, yet I was given a fancy slide-rule at age 10, figured out how to do a simple multiplication and division on it and formed a permanent mental impression of logarithms.</p><p>On the other side, seeing an exponential curve and understanding its implications also leaves one with a permanent mental reference image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with people and logarithms ?
You 're posting on slashdot , you should know better ! The logarithm grows very * slowly * : log ( 5 ) = 1.6log ( 10 ) = 2.3log ( 100 ) = 4.6log ( 1000 ) = 6.9Part of the problem may be that no-one looks at simple slide-rules [ wikipedia.org ] or other graphic representations of logarithmic scales any more .
I 'm no math genius , yet I was given a fancy slide-rule at age 10 , figured out how to do a simple multiplication and division on it and formed a permanent mental impression of logarithms.On the other side , seeing an exponential curve and understanding its implications also leaves one with a permanent mental reference image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with people and logarithms?
You're posting on slashdot, you should know better!The logarithm grows very *slowly*:log(5) = 1.6log(10) = 2.3log(100) = 4.6log(1000) = 6.9Part of the problem may be that no-one looks at simple slide-rules [wikipedia.org] or other graphic representations of logarithmic scales any more.
I'm no math genius, yet I was given a fancy slide-rule at age 10, figured out how to do a simple multiplication and division on it and formed a permanent mental impression of logarithms.On the other side, seeing an exponential curve and understanding its implications also leaves one with a permanent mental reference image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954656</id>
	<title>$1337 - killer reward.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1264758300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you read it properly of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you read it properly of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you read it properly of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955028</id>
	<title>This is the future of IT.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get paid $500 a year for the one bounty you hit before the hordes of others get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get paid $ 500 a year for the one bounty you hit before the hordes of others get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get paid $500 a year for the one bounty you hit before the hordes of others get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956052</id>
	<title>So much for Do No Evil!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264763940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, do we love Appl-- oops I mean -- Google or hate 'em today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , do we love Appl-- oops I mean -- Google or hate 'em today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, do we love Appl-- oops I mean -- Google or hate 'em today?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954852</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the increase is small enough it probably wouldn't be a problem, but this calls up memories of playing Risk and holding onto my cards because as much as I needed the reward from using them now, it'd be so much MORE of a reward if I held out until someone else turned theirs in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the increase is small enough it probably would n't be a problem , but this calls up memories of playing Risk and holding onto my cards because as much as I needed the reward from using them now , it 'd be so much MORE of a reward if I held out until someone else turned theirs in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the increase is small enough it probably wouldn't be a problem, but this calls up memories of playing Risk and holding onto my cards because as much as I needed the reward from using them now, it'd be so much MORE of a reward if I held out until someone else turned theirs in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958464</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>Orestesx</author>
	<datestamp>1264777740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, it gives honest people a reward for reporting bugs, when all they would have gotten before is a thank you (maybe). How is that a publicity stunt?</p><p>And GP says limited scope like it's a bad thing. I wish more things in my life were limited scope (software projects, federal copyright protection laws, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , it gives honest people a reward for reporting bugs , when all they would have gotten before is a thank you ( maybe ) .
How is that a publicity stunt ? And GP says limited scope like it 's a bad thing .
I wish more things in my life were limited scope ( software projects , federal copyright protection laws , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, it gives honest people a reward for reporting bugs, when all they would have gotten before is a thank you (maybe).
How is that a publicity stunt?And GP says limited scope like it's a bad thing.
I wish more things in my life were limited scope (software projects, federal copyright protection laws, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956862</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1264767480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, step one is they have to agree it's really a bug. Could be somebody's warped idea of a feature, you know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , step one is they have to agree it 's really a bug .
Could be somebody 's warped idea of a feature , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, step one is they have to agree it's really a bug.
Could be somebody's warped idea of a feature, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955922</id>
	<title>Re:google just does everything different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264763400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only real gripe slashdotters have with google is targeted advertising, but that's their revenue model, so the best we can hope for is that they don't give the info to those who would use it for something harmful (which seems to be the case, <b>for now anyway</b>).</p></div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real gripe slashdotters have with google is targeted advertising , but that 's their revenue model , so the best we can hope for is that they do n't give the info to those who would use it for something harmful ( which seems to be the case , for now anyway ) .FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real gripe slashdotters have with google is targeted advertising, but that's their revenue model, so the best we can hope for is that they don't give the info to those who would use it for something harmful (which seems to be the case, for now anyway).FTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955512</id>
	<title>Obligatory Dilbert Quote</title>
	<author>nobodyman</author>
	<datestamp>1264761600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First thing that came to mind:</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://joeindie.com/blog/?p=50" title="joeindie.com">I'm gonna write myself a mini-van this afternoon!!</a> [joeindie.com]</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First thing that came to mind : I 'm gon na write myself a mini-van this afternoon ! !
[ joeindie.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First thing that came to mind: I'm gonna write myself a mini-van this afternoon!!
[joeindie.com] 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955608</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>JelloJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264761900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many times do i need to say this.  Chromium != Chrome</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times do i need to say this .
Chromium ! = Chrome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times do i need to say this.
Chromium != Chrome</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30961462</id>
	<title>$1000 for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264859700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I installed Chromium 4 "stable" on XP and now I can't start it. Crashes immediately. Chromium 5 nightly, same. Older builds worked fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I installed Chromium 4 " stable " on XP and now I ca n't start it .
Crashes immediately .
Chromium 5 nightly , same .
Older builds worked fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I installed Chromium 4 "stable" on XP and now I can't start it.
Crashes immediately.
Chromium 5 nightly, same.
Older builds worked fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954630</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Next Microsoft.  A low-level employee of Google farts, and it gets reported here on Slashdot as Important News.  Yay!  Keep sucking their cocks with free publicity guys, maybe you'll be rewarded with a protein shake!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Next Microsoft .
A low-level employee of Google farts , and it gets reported here on Slashdot as Important News .
Yay ! Keep sucking their cocks with free publicity guys , maybe you 'll be rewarded with a protein shake !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Next Microsoft.
A low-level employee of Google farts, and it gets reported here on Slashdot as Important News.
Yay!  Keep sucking their cocks with free publicity guys, maybe you'll be rewarded with a protein shake!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956098</id>
	<title>Re:google just does everything different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264764120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.</i> </p><p>Here's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies <a href="http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/1998/12/0057.html" title="jammed.com" rel="nofollow">in 1998</a> [jammed.com].  Point #3 is probably most salient in this case, but Chromium isn't open source, so the first two are still valid.</p></div><p>Good old Bruce was writing about cracking <b>contests</b>.<br>The way TFS is phrased, it doesn't sound like Google will at any point claim "we're secure, because we paid for security bugs."<br>It sounds more like "we'd like to be secure. Probably we messed up somewhere. We'll try to find it ourselves, but if you help us out, we'll say thanks and get you a beer."</p><p>Bruce's rant was against companies who'd say something like "Chromium is the most secure browser ever. We are so convinced, we will actually <i>pay</i> for security bugs found in our code." Google's statement sounded quite different to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear , it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry .
Here 's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies in 1998 [ jammed.com ] .
Point # 3 is probably most salient in this case , but Chromium is n't open source , so the first two are still valid.Good old Bruce was writing about cracking contests.The way TFS is phrased , it does n't sound like Google will at any point claim " we 're secure , because we paid for security bugs .
" It sounds more like " we 'd like to be secure .
Probably we messed up somewhere .
We 'll try to find it ourselves , but if you help us out , we 'll say thanks and get you a beer .
" Bruce 's rant was against companies who 'd say something like " Chromium is the most secure browser ever .
We are so convinced , we will actually pay for security bugs found in our code .
" Google 's statement sounded quite different to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.
Here's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies in 1998 [jammed.com].
Point #3 is probably most salient in this case, but Chromium isn't open source, so the first two are still valid.Good old Bruce was writing about cracking contests.The way TFS is phrased, it doesn't sound like Google will at any point claim "we're secure, because we paid for security bugs.
"It sounds more like "we'd like to be secure.
Probably we messed up somewhere.
We'll try to find it ourselves, but if you help us out, we'll say thanks and get you a beer.
"Bruce's rant was against companies who'd say something like "Chromium is the most secure browser ever.
We are so convinced, we will actually pay for security bugs found in our code.
" Google's statement sounded quite different to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955124</id>
	<title>What about when the bugs are "features"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1529202&amp;cid=30952870" title="slashdot.org">I just talked about this in the other Chrome article,</a> [slashdot.org] but all the bugs i'd like to report they claim to be features.<br>
<br>
Even though they say <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2009/01/tabbed-browsing-in-google-chrome.html" title="chromium.org">they know it causes problems</a> [chromium.org] they'd rather continue to have a browser with issues rather than implement proven solutions that other browsers have come up with because they have aesthetic issues with those solutions.<br>
<br>
I really don't appreciate them making the product less useful to me because they don't like the solutions other people have come up with but can't think of anything better themselves. In my mind that counts as a bug, but that's not a definition they're going to accept.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just talked about this in the other Chrome article , [ slashdot.org ] but all the bugs i 'd like to report they claim to be features .
Even though they say they know it causes problems [ chromium.org ] they 'd rather continue to have a browser with issues rather than implement proven solutions that other browsers have come up with because they have aesthetic issues with those solutions .
I really do n't appreciate them making the product less useful to me because they do n't like the solutions other people have come up with but ca n't think of anything better themselves .
In my mind that counts as a bug , but that 's not a definition they 're going to accept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just talked about this in the other Chrome article, [slashdot.org] but all the bugs i'd like to report they claim to be features.
Even though they say they know it causes problems [chromium.org] they'd rather continue to have a browser with issues rather than implement proven solutions that other browsers have come up with because they have aesthetic issues with those solutions.
I really don't appreciate them making the product less useful to me because they don't like the solutions other people have come up with but can't think of anything better themselves.
In my mind that counts as a bug, but that's not a definition they're going to accept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959908</id>
	<title>A perverse Incentive</title>
	<author>abhishekupadhya</author>
	<datestamp>1264793340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Tie up with some of the coders behind chromium.
2. Ask them to insert clever, high-impact bugs.
3. report the exploit.
4. Collect $1337</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Tie up with some of the coders behind chromium .
2. Ask them to insert clever , high-impact bugs .
3. report the exploit .
4. Collect $ 1337</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Tie up with some of the coders behind chromium.
2. Ask them to insert clever, high-impact bugs.
3. report the exploit.
4. Collect $1337</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958562</id>
	<title>Re:Why tell when you can exploit?</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1264778700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So that's $5500 for submitting the bug for both.  Nothing ethically wrong with that, because once someone has discovered/submitted it, it's really fair game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's $ 5500 for submitting the bug for both .
Nothing ethically wrong with that , because once someone has discovered/submitted it , it 's really fair game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's $5500 for submitting the bug for both.
Nothing ethically wrong with that, because once someone has discovered/submitted it, it's really fair game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996</id>
	<title>Why tell when you can exploit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why claim a $500 reward when you can exploit and steal more?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why claim a $ 500 reward when you can exploit and steal more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why claim a $500 reward when you can exploit and steal more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682</id>
	<title>Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264758360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have to decide it's a critical bug, and it must be a single bug. A string of minor bugs that leads to a catastrophic bypass of security would be ineligible if I read these guidelines correctly. They also won't accept it if it's an operating system bug, though I could envision this being "the system call doesn't function as documented". Well, if the operating system won't fix it, it's still the application developer's responsibility to use a workaround -- but you wouldn't get credit for this even if it was a potentially serious problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have to decide it 's a critical bug , and it must be a single bug .
A string of minor bugs that leads to a catastrophic bypass of security would be ineligible if I read these guidelines correctly .
They also wo n't accept it if it 's an operating system bug , though I could envision this being " the system call does n't function as documented " .
Well , if the operating system wo n't fix it , it 's still the application developer 's responsibility to use a workaround -- but you would n't get credit for this even if it was a potentially serious problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have to decide it's a critical bug, and it must be a single bug.
A string of minor bugs that leads to a catastrophic bypass of security would be ineligible if I read these guidelines correctly.
They also won't accept it if it's an operating system bug, though I could envision this being "the system call doesn't function as documented".
Well, if the operating system won't fix it, it's still the application developer's responsibility to use a workaround -- but you wouldn't get credit for this even if it was a potentially serious problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956268</id>
	<title>Re:Not so new</title>
	<author>16384</author>
	<datestamp>1264764840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth\_reward\_check" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth\_reward\_check</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>See also http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth \ _reward \ _check [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth\_reward\_check [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955090</id>
	<title>Re:Why tell when you can exploit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why claim a $500 reward when you can exploit and steal more?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

In Soviet Russia, spammer rewards YOU!
</p><p>
I'll take exploits for $500, Alex.
<br>
Sorry, the Russian Business Network is paying $5000.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why claim a $ 500 reward when you can exploit and steal more ?
In Soviet Russia , spammer rewards YOU !
I 'll take exploits for $ 500 , Alex .
Sorry , the Russian Business Network is paying $ 5000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why claim a $500 reward when you can exploit and steal more?
In Soviet Russia, spammer rewards YOU!
I'll take exploits for $500, Alex.
Sorry, the Russian Business Network is paying $5000.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955826</id>
	<title>Nothing like old-school incentives...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1264762980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you know, the kind of incentives that pre-date crap like stock options in lieu of a pay raise...</p><p>Ah yes, let's all shiver from the crisp air whipping from a stack of cold hard cash.  I like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you know , the kind of incentives that pre-date crap like stock options in lieu of a pay raise...Ah yes , let 's all shiver from the crisp air whipping from a stack of cold hard cash .
I like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you know, the kind of incentives that pre-date crap like stock options in lieu of a pay raise...Ah yes, let's all shiver from the crisp air whipping from a stack of cold hard cash.
I like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955694</id>
	<title>Re:Why tell when you can exploit?</title>
	<author>Internalist</author>
	<datestamp>1264762260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?!? Because you have morals. The incentives are of course there for honest people, not thieves and scoundrels. That is, honest people who care about securing/protecting their own systems &amp; privacy, and/or that of others (sometimes people like to help other people).</p><p>Presumably the hope is that incentivizing things this way will make the morally-upright people have a go at finding the bugs...ideally *before* the nefarious crowd swoops in...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? ! ?
Because you have morals .
The incentives are of course there for honest people , not thieves and scoundrels .
That is , honest people who care about securing/protecting their own systems &amp; privacy , and/or that of others ( sometimes people like to help other people ) .Presumably the hope is that incentivizing things this way will make the morally-upright people have a go at finding the bugs...ideally * before * the nefarious crowd swoops in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?!?
Because you have morals.
The incentives are of course there for honest people, not thieves and scoundrels.
That is, honest people who care about securing/protecting their own systems &amp; privacy, and/or that of others (sometimes people like to help other people).Presumably the hope is that incentivizing things this way will make the morally-upright people have a go at finding the bugs...ideally *before* the nefarious crowd swoops in...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957952</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264773600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think exponential curves are viable unless you choose such a large stretching factor as to keep the "exponential" curve essentially flat.</p><p>A logarithmic curve is viable though.  You just have to make it into A*log(b*x) + c.  Choose reasonable values for A, b, and c, and you have something that is economically viable in the long term yet still increases as scarcity sets in.</p><p>Of course this is all basically nonsense because it assumes no bug incoming rate.  Even if they never recompiled and kept the exact same binary, changes in the OS they run on will inevitably introduce new bugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think exponential curves are viable unless you choose such a large stretching factor as to keep the " exponential " curve essentially flat.A logarithmic curve is viable though .
You just have to make it into A * log ( b * x ) + c. Choose reasonable values for A , b , and c , and you have something that is economically viable in the long term yet still increases as scarcity sets in.Of course this is all basically nonsense because it assumes no bug incoming rate .
Even if they never recompiled and kept the exact same binary , changes in the OS they run on will inevitably introduce new bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think exponential curves are viable unless you choose such a large stretching factor as to keep the "exponential" curve essentially flat.A logarithmic curve is viable though.
You just have to make it into A*log(b*x) + c.  Choose reasonable values for A, b, and c, and you have something that is economically viable in the long term yet still increases as scarcity sets in.Of course this is all basically nonsense because it assumes no bug incoming rate.
Even if they never recompiled and kept the exact same binary, changes in the OS they run on will inevitably introduce new bugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955192</id>
	<title>Direct deposit plz</title>
	<author>deglr6328</author>
	<datestamp>1264760160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://i18.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/f1/fc/cfb3\_1\_sbl.JPG" title="ebayimg.com">here you go</a> [ebayimg.com]. I can haz monies nao plz? kthxbye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>here you go [ ebayimg.com ] .
I can haz monies nao plz ?
kthxbye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here you go [ebayimg.com].
I can haz monies nao plz?
kthxbye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955528</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264761600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, but if you're the criminal you can get paid twice:<br>1) find vulnerability<br>2) sell vulnerability to fraudsters ($$)<br>3) report vulnerability to google for $$<br>4) google patches vulnerability so fraudsters can't use it anymore<br>5) goto 1<br>6) profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but if you 're the criminal you can get paid twice : 1 ) find vulnerability2 ) sell vulnerability to fraudsters ( $ $ ) 3 ) report vulnerability to google for $ $ 4 ) google patches vulnerability so fraudsters ca n't use it anymore5 ) goto 16 ) profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but if you're the criminal you can get paid twice:1) find vulnerability2) sell vulnerability to fraudsters ($$)3) report vulnerability to google for $$4) google patches vulnerability so fraudsters can't use it anymore5) goto 16) profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30965840</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264849140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honing the new Mr Gates? I believe, hidden in the sands of time, his teenage computer access was justified by finding OS bugs in a mainframe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honing the new Mr Gates ?
I believe , hidden in the sands of time , his teenage computer access was justified by finding OS bugs in a mainframe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honing the new Mr Gates?
I believe, hidden in the sands of time, his teenage computer access was justified by finding OS bugs in a mainframe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146</id>
	<title>google just does everything different</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1264759980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some software companies sue security researchers. A few (Adobe) even attempt to get researchers arrested! Microsoft openly espouses its disdain for security researchers (see Balmer's comments at the shareholders' meeting).</p><p>Google? Google pays them cold, hard cash.</p><p>I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry. It's like they're reading Slashdot and doing everything we say! The only real gripe slashdotters have with google is targeted advertising, but that's their revenue model, so the best we can hope for is that they don't give the info to those who would use it for something harmful (which seems to be the case).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some software companies sue security researchers .
A few ( Adobe ) even attempt to get researchers arrested !
Microsoft openly espouses its disdain for security researchers ( see Balmer 's comments at the shareholders ' meeting ) .Google ?
Google pays them cold , hard cash.I swear , it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry .
It 's like they 're reading Slashdot and doing everything we say !
The only real gripe slashdotters have with google is targeted advertising , but that 's their revenue model , so the best we can hope for is that they do n't give the info to those who would use it for something harmful ( which seems to be the case ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some software companies sue security researchers.
A few (Adobe) even attempt to get researchers arrested!
Microsoft openly espouses its disdain for security researchers (see Balmer's comments at the shareholders' meeting).Google?
Google pays them cold, hard cash.I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.
It's like they're reading Slashdot and doing everything we say!
The only real gripe slashdotters have with google is targeted advertising, but that's their revenue model, so the best we can hope for is that they don't give the info to those who would use it for something harmful (which seems to be the case).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956410</id>
	<title>What would Microsoft do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264765380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what Microsoft would offer as a "bounty" for finding bugs in IE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what Microsoft would offer as a " bounty " for finding bugs in IE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what Microsoft would offer as a "bounty" for finding bugs in IE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956912</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea!</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264767840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#Development" title="wikipedia.org">TeX</a> [wikipedia.org]? though Knuth, being the badass that he is, did it with an exponential curve rather than a logarithmic one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like TeX [ wikipedia.org ] ?
though Knuth , being the badass that he is , did it with an exponential curve rather than a logarithmic one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like TeX [wikipedia.org]?
though Knuth, being the badass that he is, did it with an exponential curve rather than a logarithmic one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955308</id>
	<title>I know a bug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264760700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's something causing facebook and twitter icons on my slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something causing facebook and twitter icons on my slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something causing facebook and twitter icons on my slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958838</id>
	<title>Leet</title>
	<author>danielsouzat</author>
	<datestamp>1264781160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>R$ 1337 = Leet</htmltext>
<tokenext>R $ 1337 = Leet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>R$ 1337 = Leet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958320</id>
	<title>$500 is to cheap to be worthwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security bugs found in chromium are worth way more on the black market than they are to someone offering them to Google.</p><p>Furthermore, at $500/bug, that pays for about 10 hours of work - no more.</p><p>Well, except if you're in China or India.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security bugs found in chromium are worth way more on the black market than they are to someone offering them to Google.Furthermore , at $ 500/bug , that pays for about 10 hours of work - no more.Well , except if you 're in China or India .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security bugs found in chromium are worth way more on the black market than they are to someone offering them to Google.Furthermore, at $500/bug, that pays for about 10 hours of work - no more.Well, except if you're in China or India.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959688</id>
	<title>Re:Nice idea, but limited scope</title>
	<author>SoulDrift</author>
	<datestamp>1264789740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$500 (or even $1337) seems a bit low to encourage a would be criminal to go legit with some clever zero day, rather than exploit it.</p></div><p>Yes, a criminal won't be tempted by such a low number. But an honest person will be.  And there's still more of those around. If you can encourage them to look at your code and report bugs, for both fun *and* honest profit, then you have an edge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 500 ( or even $ 1337 ) seems a bit low to encourage a would be criminal to go legit with some clever zero day , rather than exploit it.Yes , a criminal wo n't be tempted by such a low number .
But an honest person will be .
And there 's still more of those around .
If you can encourage them to look at your code and report bugs , for both fun * and * honest profit , then you have an edge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$500 (or even $1337) seems a bit low to encourage a would be criminal to go legit with some clever zero day, rather than exploit it.Yes, a criminal won't be tempted by such a low number.
But an honest person will be.
And there's still more of those around.
If you can encourage them to look at your code and report bugs, for both fun *and* honest profit, then you have an edge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959778</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264791360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a nice idea, encourages everyone to sit on their bugs until the amount is higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a nice idea , encourages everyone to sit on their bugs until the amount is higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a nice idea, encourages everyone to sit on their bugs until the amount is higher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955638</id>
	<title>Re:google just does everything different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264762020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, use it for something harmfull . . .  Like that Raytheon commercial for American Cyber-warfare experts (Ad provided by Google) that keeps showing up when I check out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?  Define harmful, and to whom, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , use it for something harmfull .
. .
Like that Raytheon commercial for American Cyber-warfare experts ( Ad provided by Google ) that keeps showing up when I check out /. ?
Define harmful , and to whom , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, use it for something harmfull .
. .
Like that Raytheon commercial for American Cyber-warfare experts (Ad provided by Google) that keeps showing up when I check out /.?
Define harmful, and to whom, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956882</id>
	<title>Re:No adblock plus</title>
	<author>Chameleon Man</author>
	<datestamp>1264767600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb?hl=en-US" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">AdThwart</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>AdThwart [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AdThwart [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958952</id>
	<title>Re:google just does everything different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264782000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read TFBlog you'll see that they go to great efforts to show that this is not a contest.</p><p>Bruce was speaking specifically about contests intended to prove that a product is "secure" if the prize goes unclaimed.<br>Google is clearly not offering that kind of reward, but instead a "thank you" for anybody that finds a (security related) bug.</p><p>Maybe you'll want to read your own links next time before commenting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read TFBlog you 'll see that they go to great efforts to show that this is not a contest.Bruce was speaking specifically about contests intended to prove that a product is " secure " if the prize goes unclaimed.Google is clearly not offering that kind of reward , but instead a " thank you " for anybody that finds a ( security related ) bug.Maybe you 'll want to read your own links next time before commenting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read TFBlog you'll see that they go to great efforts to show that this is not a contest.Bruce was speaking specifically about contests intended to prove that a product is "secure" if the prize goes unclaimed.Google is clearly not offering that kind of reward, but instead a "thank you" for anybody that finds a (security related) bug.Maybe you'll want to read your own links next time before commenting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957136</id>
	<title>Re:Dilbert</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264769040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Link, or it didn&rsquo;t happen!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Link , or it didn    t happen !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link, or it didn’t happen!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30965118</id>
	<title>No $500 for you, &amp; here is why: A BETTER WAY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264843320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles</b> like browser addons do no less!</p><p><b>2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are.</b> HOSTS files cover &amp; protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).</p><p><b>3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs</b> (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).</p><p><b>4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can</b> by FAR.</p><p><b>5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed</b> (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).</p><p><b>6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained</b> (for reliable ones -&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file</a> [wikipedia.org] ) <b>&amp; edited</b> too.</p><p><b>7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either</b> like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.</p><p><b>8.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE</b></p><p><b>9.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well</b>, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.</p><p><b>10.) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EASILY EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS</b> &amp; HOSTS do, via texteditors like notepad.exe (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks)).</p><p>APK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less ! 2 .
) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons , are .
HOSTS files cover &amp; protect ( for security ) and speed up ( all apps that are webbound ) any app you have that goes to the internet ( specifically the web ) .3 .
) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs ( via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server , but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised ( see Dan Kaminsky online , on that note ) ) .4 .
) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like , via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file , FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.5 .
) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised , or downed ( if either occurs , you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case ) .6 .
) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled , obtained ( for reliable ones - &gt; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts \ _file [ wikipedia.org ] ) &amp; edited too.7 .
) HOSTS files are n't as vulnerable to " bugs " either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are , OR even DNS servers.8 .
) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE9 .
) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well , via write-protection " read-only " attributes set on them , or more radically , via ACL 's even.10 .
) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EASILY EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS &amp; HOSTS do , via texteditors like notepad.exe ( afaik , @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here ( thanks ) ) .APK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!2.
) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are.
HOSTS files cover &amp; protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).3.
) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).4.
) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.5.
) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).6.
) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file [wikipedia.org] ) &amp; edited too.7.
) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.8.
) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE9.
) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.10.
) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EASILY EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS &amp; HOSTS do, via texteditors like notepad.exe (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks)).APK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30962980</id>
	<title>Re:Why tell when you can exploit?</title>
	<author>General Wesc</author>
	<datestamp>1264873080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people have moral qualms about exploiting bugs to steal from people. They also have non-moral qualms about going to jail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people have moral qualms about exploiting bugs to steal from people .
They also have non-moral qualms about going to jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people have moral qualms about exploiting bugs to steal from people.
They also have non-moral qualms about going to jail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955516</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea!</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1264761600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the point, an exponential payout would encompass all of Google's future profits within the year. Whereas the logarithmic increase would be a tiny incremental increase each time an exploit was turned in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the point , an exponential payout would encompass all of Google 's future profits within the year .
Whereas the logarithmic increase would be a tiny incremental increase each time an exploit was turned in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the point, an exponential payout would encompass all of Google's future profits within the year.
Whereas the logarithmic increase would be a tiny incremental increase each time an exploit was turned in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30960104</id>
	<title>Re:google just does everything different</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1264882380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Google should <b>employ</b> all those who find <i>clever bugs</i> in Chromium</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google should employ all those who find clever bugs in Chromium</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Google should employ all those who find clever bugs in Chromium</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955098</id>
	<title>Re:Why tell when you can exploit?</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264759800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because that is illegal... the idea of this project is to get honest security researchers incentives to find bugs so that the people who would exploit them, cannot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that is illegal... the idea of this project is to get honest security researchers incentives to find bugs so that the people who would exploit them , can not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that is illegal... the idea of this project is to get honest security researchers incentives to find bugs so that the people who would exploit them, cannot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957436</id>
	<title>Not open source? Where'd that come from?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264770540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...but Chromium isn't open source...</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.chromium.org/" title="chromium.org">Incorrect.</a> [chromium.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but Chromium is n't open source...Incorrect .
[ chromium.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but Chromium isn't open source...Incorrect.
[chromium.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954724</id>
	<title>Dilbert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time for Ratbert to do his dance on the keyboard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Ratbert to do his dance on the keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Ratbert to do his dance on the keyboard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955074</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is it with people and logarithms? You're posting on slashdot, you should know  better!
<p>
The logarithm grows very *slowly*:
</p><p>
log(5) = 1.6<br>
log(10) = 2.3<br>
log(100) = 4.6<br>
log(1000) = 6.9</p><p>
For all practial purposes, you can think of a logarithmic curve as constant.
</p><p>
What you're talking about is an *exponential* curve. Here's the exponential:
</p><p>
exp(5) = 148.4<br>
exp(10) = 22026<br>
exp(100) = 26881171418161354484126255515800135873611118<br>
exp(1000) =
19700711140170469938888793522433231253169379853238457899528029913850\<br>
63850782441193474978076563026889930963817987520226935982981730544612\<br>
89923262783660152825232320535169584566756192271567602788071422466826\<br>
31400685516850865349794166031604536781793809290529972858013286994585\<br>
64702865343759004565643555891562204223202605188261122886383583722487\<br>
24725214506150418881937494100871264232248436315760560377439930623959\<br>
705844189509050047074217568</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with people and logarithms ?
You 're posting on slashdot , you should know better !
The logarithm grows very * slowly * : log ( 5 ) = 1.6 log ( 10 ) = 2.3 log ( 100 ) = 4.6 log ( 1000 ) = 6.9 For all practial purposes , you can think of a logarithmic curve as constant .
What you 're talking about is an * exponential * curve .
Here 's the exponential : exp ( 5 ) = 148.4 exp ( 10 ) = 22026 exp ( 100 ) = 26881171418161354484126255515800135873611118 exp ( 1000 ) = 19700711140170469938888793522433231253169379853238457899528029913850 \ 63850782441193474978076563026889930963817987520226935982981730544612 \ 89923262783660152825232320535169584566756192271567602788071422466826 \ 31400685516850865349794166031604536781793809290529972858013286994585 \ 64702865343759004565643555891562204223202605188261122886383583722487 \ 24725214506150418881937494100871264232248436315760560377439930623959 \ 705844189509050047074217568</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with people and logarithms?
You're posting on slashdot, you should know  better!
The logarithm grows very *slowly*:

log(5) = 1.6
log(10) = 2.3
log(100) = 4.6
log(1000) = 6.9
For all practial purposes, you can think of a logarithmic curve as constant.
What you're talking about is an *exponential* curve.
Here's the exponential:

exp(5) = 148.4
exp(10) = 22026
exp(100) = 26881171418161354484126255515800135873611118
exp(1000) =
19700711140170469938888793522433231253169379853238457899528029913850\
63850782441193474978076563026889930963817987520226935982981730544612\
89923262783660152825232320535169584566756192271567602788071422466826\
31400685516850865349794166031604536781793809290529972858013286994585\
64702865343759004565643555891562204223202605188261122886383583722487\
24725214506150418881937494100871264232248436315760560377439930623959\
705844189509050047074217568</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30960104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30965118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30962980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_171208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30961644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30961644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955528
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30962980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30960104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956122
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30965118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_171208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30956912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30959778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30957952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30955516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30958098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_171208.30954852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
