<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_06_0158248</id>
	<title>Microsoft Finally To Patch 17-Year-Old Bug</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265468940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Microsoft is due for a very large patch this month, in which five critical holes (that render Windows hijackable by an intruder) are due to be fixed, in addition to twenty other problems.  The biggest change addresses <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8499859.stm">a 17-year-old bug dating back to the days of DOS</a>, discovered in January by their BFF Google.  The patch <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms10-feb.mspx">should roll out February 9th</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Microsoft is due for a very large patch this month , in which five critical holes ( that render Windows hijackable by an intruder ) are due to be fixed , in addition to twenty other problems .
The biggest change addresses a 17-year-old bug dating back to the days of DOS , discovered in January by their BFF Google .
The patch should roll out February 9th .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Microsoft is due for a very large patch this month, in which five critical holes (that render Windows hijackable by an intruder) are due to be fixed, in addition to twenty other problems.
The biggest change addresses a 17-year-old bug dating back to the days of DOS, discovered in January by their BFF Google.
The patch should roll out February 9th.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044644</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1265458800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, my. I did a bit of work, last year, on an ancient project shared project that turned out to still be in use. (Small project, very stable code, old client.) There was a bug in handling mixed case filenames, and another one for handling files with spaces or punctuation in them: I'd never noticed, because when I wrote it it was all UNIX and no one \_did\_ that. But now some of the files were being generated by Samba clients on Windows boxes, who wrote files like "March 3rd Data.txt". So I fixed the bug, which I'd never noticed, in 12 year old code. It could have become an interesting security issue, too: opening unexpected files as root due to file name mis-parsing.</p><p>It happens, and as code is exposed to new uses, it's not unusual. In a large, open source project with "many eyes" on it, I'd expect it to have been noticed a lot faster. (I was careless with filename handling: I've learned better since then, and plenty of experienced programmers would have noticed it themselves if it were more broadly used.) And my code is "trusted", from a "respected vendor". It's the sort of reason that I prefer to start with a working, well-known project and enhance it, rather than writing from scratch: usually someone has already fixed these sorts of bugs. And it's why I like to see the source on an open project, rather than merely submit a bug report to a vendor. I can see if they did that style of bug a *lot*.</p><p>In fact, I just had a long chat with a developer about his "case" statements: he refused to acknowledge that they should have "default" cases, in case he had missed something, for the program to error out or report the issue. So we went through his latest program and found 3 such instances where unreported errors would occur. He said "oh, I'll add those cases", and refused to acknowledge the point that you need to handle unexpected cases by actually \_noticing\_ them. I'm afraid he may have to be let go, and his code seriously reviewed top to bottom, because of this sort of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , my .
I did a bit of work , last year , on an ancient project shared project that turned out to still be in use .
( Small project , very stable code , old client .
) There was a bug in handling mixed case filenames , and another one for handling files with spaces or punctuation in them : I 'd never noticed , because when I wrote it it was all UNIX and no one \ _did \ _ that .
But now some of the files were being generated by Samba clients on Windows boxes , who wrote files like " March 3rd Data.txt " .
So I fixed the bug , which I 'd never noticed , in 12 year old code .
It could have become an interesting security issue , too : opening unexpected files as root due to file name mis-parsing.It happens , and as code is exposed to new uses , it 's not unusual .
In a large , open source project with " many eyes " on it , I 'd expect it to have been noticed a lot faster .
( I was careless with filename handling : I 've learned better since then , and plenty of experienced programmers would have noticed it themselves if it were more broadly used .
) And my code is " trusted " , from a " respected vendor " .
It 's the sort of reason that I prefer to start with a working , well-known project and enhance it , rather than writing from scratch : usually someone has already fixed these sorts of bugs .
And it 's why I like to see the source on an open project , rather than merely submit a bug report to a vendor .
I can see if they did that style of bug a * lot * .In fact , I just had a long chat with a developer about his " case " statements : he refused to acknowledge that they should have " default " cases , in case he had missed something , for the program to error out or report the issue .
So we went through his latest program and found 3 such instances where unreported errors would occur .
He said " oh , I 'll add those cases " , and refused to acknowledge the point that you need to handle unexpected cases by actually \ _noticing \ _ them .
I 'm afraid he may have to be let go , and his code seriously reviewed top to bottom , because of this sort of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, my.
I did a bit of work, last year, on an ancient project shared project that turned out to still be in use.
(Small project, very stable code, old client.
) There was a bug in handling mixed case filenames, and another one for handling files with spaces or punctuation in them: I'd never noticed, because when I wrote it it was all UNIX and no one \_did\_ that.
But now some of the files were being generated by Samba clients on Windows boxes, who wrote files like "March 3rd Data.txt".
So I fixed the bug, which I'd never noticed, in 12 year old code.
It could have become an interesting security issue, too: opening unexpected files as root due to file name mis-parsing.It happens, and as code is exposed to new uses, it's not unusual.
In a large, open source project with "many eyes" on it, I'd expect it to have been noticed a lot faster.
(I was careless with filename handling: I've learned better since then, and plenty of experienced programmers would have noticed it themselves if it were more broadly used.
) And my code is "trusted", from a "respected vendor".
It's the sort of reason that I prefer to start with a working, well-known project and enhance it, rather than writing from scratch: usually someone has already fixed these sorts of bugs.
And it's why I like to see the source on an open project, rather than merely submit a bug report to a vendor.
I can see if they did that style of bug a *lot*.In fact, I just had a long chat with a developer about his "case" statements: he refused to acknowledge that they should have "default" cases, in case he had missed something, for the program to error out or report the issue.
So we went through his latest program and found 3 such instances where unreported errors would occur.
He said "oh, I'll add those cases", and refused to acknowledge the point that you need to handle unexpected cases by actually \_noticing\_ them.
I'm afraid he may have to be let go, and his code seriously reviewed top to bottom, because of this sort of thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044024</id>
	<title>I Figured the16 Year Olds Would be More Important</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1265446800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows Bugs get younger every <a href="http://www.darkreading.com/security/vulnerabilities/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208803670" title="darkreading.com">year</a> [darkreading.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows Bugs get younger every year [ darkreading.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows Bugs get younger every year [darkreading.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042956</id>
	<title>Hooray for you typical Slashdot idiot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's your gold star!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's your gold star !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's your gold star!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043026</id>
	<title>"Finally"?</title>
	<author>holygoat</author>
	<datestamp>1265388660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it a little disingenuous to say "finally" when the bug was discovered last month?</p><p>That it was introduced 17 years ago doesn't mean that Microsoft has been tardy about fixing it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it a little disingenuous to say " finally " when the bug was discovered last month ? That it was introduced 17 years ago does n't mean that Microsoft has been tardy about fixing it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it a little disingenuous to say "finally" when the bug was discovered last month?That it was introduced 17 years ago doesn't mean that Microsoft has been tardy about fixing it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042764</id>
	<title>oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this a record(for a bug that's "known about" anyways?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a record ( for a bug that 's " known about " anyways ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a record(for a bug that's "known about" anyways?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31114576</id>
	<title>17 Year Old DOS Bug PATCH causes BSOD for many.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You all are missing the really sweet part of this.  MS patches a 17 year old DOS bug, and for many computers with security conscious owners, we have them set to autodownload and patch.  Well, the patch applies and now many folks are getting a blue screen of death.  It has been traced to KB977165</p><p>See http://techblips.dailyradar.com/story/patch-for-ancient-dos-bug-in-latest-windows-xp-update/</p><p>For the average home user, recovery is going to be nearly impossible.</p><p>Such a nice helpful company....</p><p>Full solution taken from here: http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...4-817bf39c207b</p><p>The short version:</p><p>1. Boot from your Windows XP CD or DVD and start the recovery console (see this link http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/307654 on how to use recovery console)</p><p>Once you are in the Repair Screen..</p><p>2. Type this command: CHDIR $NtUninstallKB977165$\spuninst</p><p>3. Type this command: BATCH spuninst.txt</p><p>4. Type this command: systemroot</p><p>5. When complete, type this command: exit</p><p>The real question is, why do only some of the patched PCs get the BSOD?  What is different about them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You all are missing the really sweet part of this .
MS patches a 17 year old DOS bug , and for many computers with security conscious owners , we have them set to autodownload and patch .
Well , the patch applies and now many folks are getting a blue screen of death .
It has been traced to KB977165See http : //techblips.dailyradar.com/story/patch-for-ancient-dos-bug-in-latest-windows-xp-update/For the average home user , recovery is going to be nearly impossible.Such a nice helpful company....Full solution taken from here : http : //social.answers.microsoft.com/...4-817bf39c207bThe short version : 1 .
Boot from your Windows XP CD or DVD and start the recovery console ( see this link http : //support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/307654 on how to use recovery console ) Once you are in the Repair Screen..2 .
Type this command : CHDIR $ NtUninstallKB977165 $ \ spuninst3 .
Type this command : BATCH spuninst.txt4 .
Type this command : systemroot5 .
When complete , type this command : exitThe real question is , why do only some of the patched PCs get the BSOD ?
What is different about them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You all are missing the really sweet part of this.
MS patches a 17 year old DOS bug, and for many computers with security conscious owners, we have them set to autodownload and patch.
Well, the patch applies and now many folks are getting a blue screen of death.
It has been traced to KB977165See http://techblips.dailyradar.com/story/patch-for-ancient-dos-bug-in-latest-windows-xp-update/For the average home user, recovery is going to be nearly impossible.Such a nice helpful company....Full solution taken from here: http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...4-817bf39c207bThe short version:1.
Boot from your Windows XP CD or DVD and start the recovery console (see this link http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/307654 on how to use recovery console)Once you are in the Repair Screen..2.
Type this command: CHDIR $NtUninstallKB977165$\spuninst3.
Type this command: BATCH spuninst.txt4.
Type this command: systemroot5.
When complete, type this command: exitThe real question is, why do only some of the patched PCs get the BSOD?
What is different about them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043658</id>
	<title>Re:"Finally"?</title>
	<author>DavidD\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1265396700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here.</p><p><i>Looks at your six-digit ID.</i></p><p>You must have bought your ID off eBay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here.Looks at your six-digit ID.You must have bought your ID off eBay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.Looks at your six-digit ID.You must have bought your ID off eBay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043840</id>
	<title>So then this means...</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1265399460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that sci-fi yarn where the mad programmer unleashes a bit of code that squirrels around the net for fifty or a hundred years, unnoticed by anyone, and when the programmer dies it unleashes the programmer's hate and fury upon the world, and no one is able to stop it even though computer's are a million times more complex and powerful than when the program was originally written? That could work? <br>
<br>
Awesome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that sci-fi yarn where the mad programmer unleashes a bit of code that squirrels around the net for fifty or a hundred years , unnoticed by anyone , and when the programmer dies it unleashes the programmer 's hate and fury upon the world , and no one is able to stop it even though computer 's are a million times more complex and powerful than when the program was originally written ?
That could work ?
Awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that sci-fi yarn where the mad programmer unleashes a bit of code that squirrels around the net for fifty or a hundred years, unnoticed by anyone, and when the programmer dies it unleashes the programmer's hate and fury upon the world, and no one is able to stop it even though computer's are a million times more complex and powerful than when the program was originally written?
That could work?
Awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042960</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1265388120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Windows 3.1 - 7 are often based on the same code set.</p><p>You, sir, do not have the vaguest idea of what you are talking about.</p><p>&gt; to get into windows 3.1 you need to type in "win" at the DOS window.</p><p>I thought for a moment you meant Windows *NT* 3.1 - 7, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's clear that you didn't mean that.</p><p>FWIW, this bug affects all NT OSes right back to NT 3.1 (the first released version) and is an obscure kernel bug (it was only found in January 2010!). The BBC article was light on details except to say it "involves a utility that allows newer versions of Windows to run very old programs", but there's more detail from the always-excellent <a href="http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-01/0346.html" title="neohapsis.com" rel="nofollow">full-disclosure mailing list</a> [neohapsis.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Windows 3.1 - 7 are often based on the same code set.You , sir , do not have the vaguest idea of what you are talking about. &gt; to get into windows 3.1 you need to type in " win " at the DOS window.I thought for a moment you meant Windows * NT * 3.1 - 7 , but ... it 's clear that you did n't mean that.FWIW , this bug affects all NT OSes right back to NT 3.1 ( the first released version ) and is an obscure kernel bug ( it was only found in January 2010 ! ) .
The BBC article was light on details except to say it " involves a utility that allows newer versions of Windows to run very old programs " , but there 's more detail from the always-excellent full-disclosure mailing list [ neohapsis.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Windows 3.1 - 7 are often based on the same code set.You, sir, do not have the vaguest idea of what you are talking about.&gt; to get into windows 3.1 you need to type in "win" at the DOS window.I thought for a moment you meant Windows *NT* 3.1 - 7, but ... it's clear that you didn't mean that.FWIW, this bug affects all NT OSes right back to NT 3.1 (the first released version) and is an obscure kernel bug (it was only found in January 2010!).
The BBC article was light on details except to say it "involves a utility that allows newer versions of Windows to run very old programs", but there's more detail from the always-excellent full-disclosure mailing list [neohapsis.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043070</id>
	<title>You joke, but I think he'd like to</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1265388960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago. Our kernel is huge and bloated. Whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse." -- <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/kernel-systems/news/index.cfm?newsId=16686" title="computerworlduk.com">Linus Torvalds</a> [computerworlduk.com], September 2009.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We are not the streamlined , small , hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago .
Our kernel is huge and bloated .
Whenever we add a new feature , it only gets worse .
" -- Linus Torvalds [ computerworlduk.com ] , September 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago.
Our kernel is huge and bloated.
Whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse.
" -- Linus Torvalds [computerworlduk.com], September 2009.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042772</id>
	<title>Better late than never...</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1265386320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow! I didn't know that the DOS code was so complicated that it took 17 years to fix.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
I did n't know that the DOS code was so complicated that it took 17 years to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
I didn't know that the DOS code was so complicated that it took 17 years to fix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043260</id>
	<title>Re:Linux Patch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265390940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt <b>bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight</b>. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them." <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eze&amp;c=4#12" title="blueletterbible.org" rel="nofollow">(Ezekiel 4:12-13)</a> [blueletterbible.org]</p><p>Sounds like Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes , and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man , in their sight .
And the LORD said , Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles , whither I will drive them .
" ( Ezekiel 4 : 12-13 ) [ blueletterbible.org ] Sounds like Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
" (Ezekiel 4:12-13) [blueletterbible.org]Sounds like Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762</id>
	<title>Linux Patch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now hopefully Linus will finally patch that one problem in Linux, where it's a big bloated pile of shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now hopefully Linus will finally patch that one problem in Linux , where it 's a big bloated pile of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now hopefully Linus will finally patch that one problem in Linux, where it's a big bloated pile of shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31045478</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265471340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>64bit versions of Windows are not affected. Windows 2008 R2 is not affected by this bug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>64bit versions of Windows are not affected .
Windows 2008 R2 is not affected by this bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>64bit versions of Windows are not affected.
Windows 2008 R2 is not affected by this bug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043726</id>
	<title>Re:You joke, but I think he'd like to</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1265397660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He was speaking in absolute terms.  Yes, the kernel could be much smaller.  It is getting out of hand, relative to the simplicity of BSD and RTOS's and that means that in absolute terms it's bigger than it need be.  Distros like <a href="http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/" title="damnsmalllinux.org" rel="nofollow">dsl</a> [damnsmalllinux.org] get around this by using older versions of the kernel, leveraging the brilliant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Busybox</a> [wikipedia.org] (thanks Bruce!), leaving out unnecessary drivers and applications.
</p><p>He could not have been talking relative to Windows.  W7 x64 is a <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">20GB</a> [microsoft.com] install - even before you add an office suite or the antimalware suites we've all come to know and love.  Given the history it's reasonable to expect W8 will require continuing innovation in installation media.
</p><p>I, for one, am glad Linus worries about such things in absolute rather than relative terms; instead of selling it to hardware partners as "it's a great way to drive adoption of new hardware!"  This might mean that version 3.0 of the Linux kernel will be a total respin to eliminate cruft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He was speaking in absolute terms .
Yes , the kernel could be much smaller .
It is getting out of hand , relative to the simplicity of BSD and RTOS 's and that means that in absolute terms it 's bigger than it need be .
Distros like dsl [ damnsmalllinux.org ] get around this by using older versions of the kernel , leveraging the brilliant Busybox [ wikipedia.org ] ( thanks Bruce !
) , leaving out unnecessary drivers and applications .
He could not have been talking relative to Windows .
W7 x64 is a 20GB [ microsoft.com ] install - even before you add an office suite or the antimalware suites we 've all come to know and love .
Given the history it 's reasonable to expect W8 will require continuing innovation in installation media .
I , for one , am glad Linus worries about such things in absolute rather than relative terms ; instead of selling it to hardware partners as " it 's a great way to drive adoption of new hardware !
" This might mean that version 3.0 of the Linux kernel will be a total respin to eliminate cruft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was speaking in absolute terms.
Yes, the kernel could be much smaller.
It is getting out of hand, relative to the simplicity of BSD and RTOS's and that means that in absolute terms it's bigger than it need be.
Distros like dsl [damnsmalllinux.org] get around this by using older versions of the kernel, leveraging the brilliant Busybox [wikipedia.org] (thanks Bruce!
), leaving out unnecessary drivers and applications.
He could not have been talking relative to Windows.
W7 x64 is a 20GB [microsoft.com] install - even before you add an office suite or the antimalware suites we've all come to know and love.
Given the history it's reasonable to expect W8 will require continuing innovation in installation media.
I, for one, am glad Linus worries about such things in absolute rather than relative terms; instead of selling it to hardware partners as "it's a great way to drive adoption of new hardware!
"  This might mean that version 3.0 of the Linux kernel will be a total respin to eliminate cruft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042810</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_NT" title="wikipedia.org">Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1</a> [wikipedia.org]. NT has been in development for over 20 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1 [ wikipedia.org ] .
NT has been in development for over 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1 [wikipedia.org].
NT has been in development for over 20 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044524</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>kadnan</author>
	<datestamp>1265456820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They kept promoting that bug as a "feature" in newer versions.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/A</htmltext>
<tokenext>They kept promoting that bug as a " feature " in newer versions .
/A</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They kept promoting that bug as a "feature" in newer versions.
/A</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043814</id>
	<title>Re:a bug thats older then i am lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265399040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're 14 and wasting your Friday night on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?<br> <br>

What happened to you kids? Shouldn't you be out smoking pot, sneaking beer and getting laid? It's like this last generation completely forgot how to have fun!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're 14 and wasting your Friday night on /. ?
What happened to you kids ?
Should n't you be out smoking pot , sneaking beer and getting laid ?
It 's like this last generation completely forgot how to have fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're 14 and wasting your Friday night on /.?
What happened to you kids?
Shouldn't you be out smoking pot, sneaking beer and getting laid?
It's like this last generation completely forgot how to have fun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31047152</id>
	<title>16-bit lives?</title>
	<author>ALeader71</author>
	<datestamp>1265486640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Backwards-compatiabiliy makes me sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Backwards-compatiabiliy makes me sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Backwards-compatiabiliy makes me sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043370</id>
	<title>If it was just discovered, why make fun of them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265392260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like Microsoft is the fool here. Well, of course they are, for not finding a bug in their software. but if nobody found it up till now, it's no reason to make fun of Microsoft more than to make fun of people searching for bugs on Microsoft software.<br>This, of course, is without thinking about the fact that the bug has been reported 2 months ago.<br>But come on, Apple and Linux fanboys are just going to jump on this headline without reading any of the facts...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like Microsoft is the fool here .
Well , of course they are , for not finding a bug in their software .
but if nobody found it up till now , it 's no reason to make fun of Microsoft more than to make fun of people searching for bugs on Microsoft software.This , of course , is without thinking about the fact that the bug has been reported 2 months ago.But come on , Apple and Linux fanboys are just going to jump on this headline without reading any of the facts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like Microsoft is the fool here.
Well, of course they are, for not finding a bug in their software.
but if nobody found it up till now, it's no reason to make fun of Microsoft more than to make fun of people searching for bugs on Microsoft software.This, of course, is without thinking about the fact that the bug has been reported 2 months ago.But come on, Apple and Linux fanboys are just going to jump on this headline without reading any of the facts...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044898</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265463120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure there's no code remaining from Windows (not NT) 3.1? There's backwards compatiblity for things that ran on it. Why reinvent the wheel badly when you have a bad wheel on hand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure there 's no code remaining from Windows ( not NT ) 3.1 ?
There 's backwards compatiblity for things that ran on it .
Why reinvent the wheel badly when you have a bad wheel on hand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure there's no code remaining from Windows (not NT) 3.1?
There's backwards compatiblity for things that ran on it.
Why reinvent the wheel badly when you have a bad wheel on hand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043912</id>
	<title>Re:oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265487300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this a record(for a bug that's "known about" anyways?</p></div><p>No; the oldest known bug is the ol' missing closing parenthesis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a record ( for a bug that 's " known about " anyways ? No ; the oldest known bug is the ol ' missing closing parenthesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a record(for a bug that's "known about" anyways?No; the oldest known bug is the ol' missing closing parenthesis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31045600</id>
	<title>Best Friend Forever Google???  O RLY???</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1265472900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google was their best friend forever, a future Google employee would invent a time machine, go back to the 1990s, and alert Microsoft of the bug.  Since we know that won't happen, it makes me doubt the level of friendship between Google and Redmond when Google invents the time machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google was their best friend forever , a future Google employee would invent a time machine , go back to the 1990s , and alert Microsoft of the bug .
Since we know that wo n't happen , it makes me doubt the level of friendship between Google and Redmond when Google invents the time machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google was their best friend forever, a future Google employee would invent a time machine, go back to the 1990s, and alert Microsoft of the bug.
Since we know that won't happen, it makes me doubt the level of friendship between Google and Redmond when Google invents the time machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046730</id>
	<title>Re:You joke, but I think he'd like to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265482920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't really say on Windows 7 64-bit, but the 32-bit version is only taking up 13GB on my system. Windirstat shows 7.5GB for the windows folder, 2Gb for the swap file, and 1.5GB for the hiberfile. I've got about 1GB worth of programs installed and google chrome is currently using another Gig for cache.</p><p>
&nbsp; It's a pretty fresh install, but without installing Steam I would say 20 GB leaves plenty of space for the operating system, and a reasonable amount of space for installing other programs(Openoffice is usually one of the largest programs I install unless I'm installing games).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't really say on Windows 7 64-bit , but the 32-bit version is only taking up 13GB on my system .
Windirstat shows 7.5GB for the windows folder , 2Gb for the swap file , and 1.5GB for the hiberfile .
I 've got about 1GB worth of programs installed and google chrome is currently using another Gig for cache .
  It 's a pretty fresh install , but without installing Steam I would say 20 GB leaves plenty of space for the operating system , and a reasonable amount of space for installing other programs ( Openoffice is usually one of the largest programs I install unless I 'm installing games ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't really say on Windows 7 64-bit, but the 32-bit version is only taking up 13GB on my system.
Windirstat shows 7.5GB for the windows folder, 2Gb for the swap file, and 1.5GB for the hiberfile.
I've got about 1GB worth of programs installed and google chrome is currently using another Gig for cache.
  It's a pretty fresh install, but without installing Steam I would say 20 GB leaves plenty of space for the operating system, and a reasonable amount of space for installing other programs(Openoffice is usually one of the largest programs I install unless I'm installing games).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043468</id>
	<title>yummy</title>
	<author>Jesus IS the Devil</author>
	<datestamp>1265393820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BFF, how cute...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BFF , how cute.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BFF, how cute...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043754</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1265398080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows 7 is very much still built on the NT codebase.</p></div><p>You lie!  Longhorn (Vista, Server 2008) was built from the <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms993768.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">ground up</a> [microsoft.com].  Microsoft told me so!
</p><p>They wouldn't lie to me.  &lt;sniff&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is very much still built on the NT codebase.You lie !
Longhorn ( Vista , Server 2008 ) was built from the ground up [ microsoft.com ] .
Microsoft told me so !
They would n't lie to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is very much still built on the NT codebase.You lie!
Longhorn (Vista, Server 2008) was built from the ground up [microsoft.com].
Microsoft told me so!
They wouldn't lie to me.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043244</id>
	<title>Average Wait For Bug Fixes</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1265390760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's really going to screw up their average response time numbers...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's really going to screw up their average response time numbers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's really going to screw up their average response time numbers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31050742</id>
	<title>Don't do it....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265483220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't do it... I have heard that it was the final crushing of the only bug to ever get into Microsoft code that causes the mega black-hole that forms at the center of the earth in 2011... (how do i make it so you have to highlight that spoiler???)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't do it... I have heard that it was the final crushing of the only bug to ever get into Microsoft code that causes the mega black-hole that forms at the center of the earth in 2011... ( how do i make it so you have to highlight that spoiler ? ? ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't do it... I have heard that it was the final crushing of the only bug to ever get into Microsoft code that causes the mega black-hole that forms at the center of the earth in 2011... (how do i make it so you have to highlight that spoiler???
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043300</id>
	<title>Re:Cicada bug?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1265391360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry. Some of the bugs created by Microsoft this year will be around in 17 years, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry .
Some of the bugs created by Microsoft this year will be around in 17 years , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry.
Some of the bugs created by Microsoft this year will be around in 17 years, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043192</id>
	<title>This is great news!</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1265390220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is excellent news for Digital Research! With these latest patches, DR-DOS can finally run the latest version of Windows without any spurious error messages. This is a great day!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is excellent news for Digital Research !
With these latest patches , DR-DOS can finally run the latest version of Windows without any spurious error messages .
This is a great day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is excellent news for Digital Research!
With these latest patches, DR-DOS can finally run the latest version of Windows without any spurious error messages.
This is a great day!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043472</id>
	<title>Re:oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms</title>
	<author>eparker05</author>
	<datestamp>1265393880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if this counts... but the year 2038 problem is coming up in another 28 years.

Something tells me that the public will be less riled up about this one. I don't foresee a rise in cult membership or survivalist magazine sales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if this counts... but the year 2038 problem is coming up in another 28 years .
Something tells me that the public will be less riled up about this one .
I do n't foresee a rise in cult membership or survivalist magazine sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if this counts... but the year 2038 problem is coming up in another 28 years.
Something tells me that the public will be less riled up about this one.
I don't foresee a rise in cult membership or survivalist magazine sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042918</id>
	<title>a bug thats older then i am lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>17 year old bug and a 14 year old kid reading about the bug(that doesn't effect me btw)</htmltext>
<tokenext>17 year old bug and a 14 year old kid reading about the bug ( that does n't effect me btw )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>17 year old bug and a 14 year old kid reading about the bug(that doesn't effect me btw)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043832</id>
	<title>Old code coming to bite you in the ass.</title>
	<author>cyberzephyr</author>
	<datestamp>1265399340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That 16 bit shit will come and get you if you don't pay attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 16 bit shit will come and get you if you do n't pay attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That 16 bit shit will come and get you if you don't pay attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043126</id>
	<title>bff</title>
	<author>thehostiles</author>
	<datestamp>1265389440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just pointing out that "Microsoft's BFF, Google" deserves a placement in internet culture</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just pointing out that " Microsoft 's BFF , Google " deserves a placement in internet culture</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just pointing out that "Microsoft's BFF, Google" deserves a placement in internet culture</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046292</id>
	<title>Linux Torvalds 2009 ==  Andrew S. Tanenbaum 1992</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1265479260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>"We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago. Our kernel is huge and bloated. Whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse." <br>-- Linus Torvalds [computerworlduk.com], September 2009.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

This round of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum&ndash;Torvalds\_debate" title="wikipedia.org"> The Tanenbaum&ndash;Torvalds debate on kernel architecture</a> [wikipedia.org] seems to be a self-administered blow from Linux to himself.
<br> <br>Jus' sayin'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We are not the streamlined , small , hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago .
Our kernel is huge and bloated .
Whenever we add a new feature , it only gets worse .
" -- Linus Torvalds [ computerworlduk.com ] , September 2009 .
This round of the The Tanenbaum    Torvalds debate on kernel architecture [ wikipedia.org ] seems to be a self-administered blow from Linux to himself .
Jus ' sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago.
Our kernel is huge and bloated.
Whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse.
" -- Linus Torvalds [computerworlduk.com], September 2009.
This round of the  The Tanenbaum–Torvalds debate on kernel architecture [wikipedia.org] seems to be a self-administered blow from Linux to himself.
Jus' sayin'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042942</id>
	<title>Cicada bug?</title>
	<author>nicknamenotavailable</author>
	<datestamp>1265388000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Cicada</a> [wikipedia.org] bug.</p><p>A Cicada has a life-cycle of 17 years.<br>Now Microsoft is about to squash it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's call it the Cicada [ wikipedia.org ] bug.A Cicada has a life-cycle of 17 years.Now Microsoft is about to squash it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's call it the Cicada [wikipedia.org] bug.A Cicada has a life-cycle of 17 years.Now Microsoft is about to squash it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042856</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265387100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather easily...</p><p>Windows 3.1 - 7 are often based on the same code set.  A security flaw back in windows 3.1 was back then a small detail considering that to get into windows 3.1 you need to type in "win" at the DOS window. Where in DOS you can do basicly anything you wanted.</p><p>So It wasn't fixed.  Security wasn't a real issue for Microsoft until Windows NT 4.0 by then the code segment would be considered safe or good as it has been there so long.  When you have millions lines of code doing a security audit will leave holes you skip parts that you know works well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather easily...Windows 3.1 - 7 are often based on the same code set .
A security flaw back in windows 3.1 was back then a small detail considering that to get into windows 3.1 you need to type in " win " at the DOS window .
Where in DOS you can do basicly anything you wanted.So It was n't fixed .
Security was n't a real issue for Microsoft until Windows NT 4.0 by then the code segment would be considered safe or good as it has been there so long .
When you have millions lines of code doing a security audit will leave holes you skip parts that you know works well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather easily...Windows 3.1 - 7 are often based on the same code set.
A security flaw back in windows 3.1 was back then a small detail considering that to get into windows 3.1 you need to type in "win" at the DOS window.
Where in DOS you can do basicly anything you wanted.So It wasn't fixed.
Security wasn't a real issue for Microsoft until Windows NT 4.0 by then the code segment would be considered safe or good as it has been there so long.
When you have millions lines of code doing a security audit will leave holes you skip parts that you know works well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042790</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, no.  The bug was introduced in Windows NT 3.1, and has remained in the NT line ever since.  Windows 7 is very much still built on the NT codebase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , no .
The bug was introduced in Windows NT 3.1 , and has remained in the NT line ever since .
Windows 7 is very much still built on the NT codebase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, no.
The bug was introduced in Windows NT 3.1, and has remained in the NT line ever since.
Windows 7 is very much still built on the NT codebase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043140</id>
	<title>Culture of insecurity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265389680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sad thing with MS is that you can point out a problem to them, show them exactly how to fix it and they still do nothing. A business case must be made for every change which goes into their products which has to justify not only the cost of making the change but that of updating all the associated test plans and the financial impact of all future regression testing. It is much less frustrating to leak a security hole and let them patch it as an attempt to wipe the egg from their face, IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad thing with MS is that you can point out a problem to them , show them exactly how to fix it and they still do nothing .
A business case must be made for every change which goes into their products which has to justify not only the cost of making the change but that of updating all the associated test plans and the financial impact of all future regression testing .
It is much less frustrating to leak a security hole and let them patch it as an attempt to wipe the egg from their face , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad thing with MS is that you can point out a problem to them, show them exactly how to fix it and they still do nothing.
A business case must be made for every change which goes into their products which has to justify not only the cost of making the change but that of updating all the associated test plans and the financial impact of all future regression testing.
It is much less frustrating to leak a security hole and let them patch it as an attempt to wipe the egg from their face, IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044204</id>
	<title>Re:This is great news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265451240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is funny, but wrong. This bug is in the NT line of Windows, which never ran on top of any version of DOS (NT could emulate DOS with the ntvdm subsystem where the bug was found), unlike the 3.1-95-98-ME line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is funny , but wrong .
This bug is in the NT line of Windows , which never ran on top of any version of DOS ( NT could emulate DOS with the ntvdm subsystem where the bug was found ) , unlike the 3.1-95-98-ME line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is funny, but wrong.
This bug is in the NT line of Windows, which never ran on top of any version of DOS (NT could emulate DOS with the ntvdm subsystem where the bug was found), unlike the 3.1-95-98-ME line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31045620</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>neovoxx</author>
	<datestamp>1265473020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>If this bug was in NT 3.1, I wonder if it's also in OS/2?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this bug was in NT 3.1 , I wonder if it 's also in OS/2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this bug was in NT 3.1, I wonder if it's also in OS/2?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31055212</id>
	<title>Re:Linux Patch</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1265539860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now hopefully MS will finally patch that one problem in Windows, where it's a big bloated pile of shit.</p><p>Almost too easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now hopefully MS will finally patch that one problem in Windows , where it 's a big bloated pile of shit.Almost too easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now hopefully MS will finally patch that one problem in Windows, where it's a big bloated pile of shit.Almost too easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042884</id>
	<title>Re:Windows NT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this post is an annoying piece of dribble...</p><p>get a clue...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this post is an annoying piece of dribble...get a clue.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this post is an annoying piece of dribble...get a clue...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042898</id>
	<title>Re:oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms</title>
	<author>nicknamenotavailable</author>
	<datestamp>1265387640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this a record(for a bug that's "known about" anyways?</p></div><p>A while ago OpenBSD developer found a 33 year old <a href="http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/07/08/2236232" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">bug</a> [slashdot.org].
<br>
It depends on your definition of "known about" I guess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a record ( for a bug that 's " known about " anyways ? A while ago OpenBSD developer found a 33 year old bug [ slashdot.org ] .
It depends on your definition of " known about " I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a record(for a bug that's "known about" anyways?A while ago OpenBSD developer found a 33 year old bug [slashdot.org].
It depends on your definition of "known about" I guess.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042874</id>
	<title>Re:Patch Tuesday ahead.</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1265387340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So let's be clear. Every second Tuesday, until hell freezes over, will be a critical windows update event. Heck of a job Stevie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let 's be clear .
Every second Tuesday , until hell freezes over , will be a critical windows update event .
Heck of a job Stevie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let's be clear.
Every second Tuesday, until hell freezes over, will be a critical windows update event.
Heck of a job Stevie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043038</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's actually 7.0. The 6.1 was a technical decision to keep compatibility with broken applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually 7.0 .
The 6.1 was a technical decision to keep compatibility with broken applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually 7.0.
The 6.1 was a technical decision to keep compatibility with broken applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046290</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>ildon</author>
	<datestamp>1265479200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is a little misleading. The bug started in NT 3.1, not DOS or Windows 3.1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is a little misleading .
The bug started in NT 3.1 , not DOS or Windows 3.1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is a little misleading.
The bug started in NT 3.1, not DOS or Windows 3.1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042808</id>
	<title>Patch Tuesday ahead.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1265386620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a rather odd story to drop into the Slashdot cycle on a Friday Night (East Coast USA), it's basically just a warning that the typical Patch Tuesday (Second Tuesday of every month) is next week and the typical 0-day bugs that will be fixed which leads to the "bad guys" finding out what the bug was and deploying their attacks in the next few days.</p><p>This really is a notice to the IT guys and people who don't have automatic update downloads installed... nothing newsworthy or out of the normal cycle of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a rather odd story to drop into the Slashdot cycle on a Friday Night ( East Coast USA ) , it 's basically just a warning that the typical Patch Tuesday ( Second Tuesday of every month ) is next week and the typical 0-day bugs that will be fixed which leads to the " bad guys " finding out what the bug was and deploying their attacks in the next few days.This really is a notice to the IT guys and people who do n't have automatic update downloads installed... nothing newsworthy or out of the normal cycle of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a rather odd story to drop into the Slashdot cycle on a Friday Night (East Coast USA), it's basically just a warning that the typical Patch Tuesday (Second Tuesday of every month) is next week and the typical 0-day bugs that will be fixed which leads to the "bad guys" finding out what the bug was and deploying their attacks in the next few days.This really is a notice to the IT guys and people who don't have automatic update downloads installed... nothing newsworthy or out of the normal cycle of things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043362</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1265392140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bug was found in a utility anyway, not the kernel, so even if XP hadn't carried the torch of the previous NT kernel and had been revamped instead, the bug would still be in XP and other recent version of Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bug was found in a utility anyway , not the kernel , so even if XP had n't carried the torch of the previous NT kernel and had been revamped instead , the bug would still be in XP and other recent version of Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bug was found in a utility anyway, not the kernel, so even if XP hadn't carried the torch of the previous NT kernel and had been revamped instead, the bug would still be in XP and other recent version of Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046638</id>
	<title>Re:Average Wait For Bug Fixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265482140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With an n as big as Microsoft's, will it really matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With an n as big as Microsoft 's , will it really matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With an n as big as Microsoft's, will it really matter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046972</id>
	<title>Re:You joke, but I think he'd like to</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1265485020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> This might mean that version 3.0 of the Linux kernel will be a total respin to eliminate cruft.</p></div><p>From your mouth to God's ear.  The apex of Linux development as far as I'm concerned is SuSE release 5, which had whatever came before 2.64.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might mean that version 3.0 of the Linux kernel will be a total respin to eliminate cruft.From your mouth to God 's ear .
The apex of Linux development as far as I 'm concerned is SuSE release 5 , which had whatever came before 2.64 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This might mean that version 3.0 of the Linux kernel will be a total respin to eliminate cruft.From your mouth to God's ear.
The apex of Linux development as far as I'm concerned is SuSE release 5, which had whatever came before 2.64.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043634</id>
	<title>On relaying news from BBC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265396460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a really poor example of slashdot news:<br>I have a BBC Latest Headlines in my Firefox.<br>Almost everyone uses Firefox.<br>Anyone who reads news probably checks it sometimes.<br>I check slashdot.<br>Beginning to get it? I've already heard about this and the OP contains nothing new!<br>I guess I'll have to read the comments to find out anything about since BBC doesn't know anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a really poor example of slashdot news : I have a BBC Latest Headlines in my Firefox.Almost everyone uses Firefox.Anyone who reads news probably checks it sometimes.I check slashdot.Beginning to get it ?
I 've already heard about this and the OP contains nothing new ! I guess I 'll have to read the comments to find out anything about since BBC does n't know anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a really poor example of slashdot news:I have a BBC Latest Headlines in my Firefox.Almost everyone uses Firefox.Anyone who reads news probably checks it sometimes.I check slashdot.Beginning to get it?
I've already heard about this and the OP contains nothing new!I guess I'll have to read the comments to find out anything about since BBC doesn't know anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</id>
	<title>Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
How in the world can a bug exist for 17 years when they've released so many versions of Windows in that time?  Hasn't the kernel been revamped three times? (Win98/ME, WinNT/Win2K/WinXP, Vista/7)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How in the world can a bug exist for 17 years when they 've released so many versions of Windows in that time ?
Has n't the kernel been revamped three times ?
( Win98/ME , WinNT/Win2K/WinXP , Vista/7 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
How in the world can a bug exist for 17 years when they've released so many versions of Windows in that time?
Hasn't the kernel been revamped three times?
(Win98/ME, WinNT/Win2K/WinXP, Vista/7)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042948</id>
	<title>Re:sigh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. But enjoy being ignorant and naieve about things like this, because problems alike do not exist for other OS's, only in Windows.. right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seriously have no idea what you 're talking about .
But enjoy being ignorant and naieve about things like this , because problems alike do not exist for other OS 's , only in Windows.. right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
But enjoy being ignorant and naieve about things like this, because problems alike do not exist for other OS's, only in Windows.. right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042924</id>
	<title>sigh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet another reason I avoid Windows and run for the hills with my linux box, if Windows was patched in a timely matter instead of being vulnerable for weeks, months, 17 years or when the media s**ts their pants, then I just might look at using it.<br> <br>

Just a thought...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason I avoid Windows and run for the hills with my linux box , if Windows was patched in a timely matter instead of being vulnerable for weeks , months , 17 years or when the media s * * ts their pants , then I just might look at using it .
Just a thought.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason I avoid Windows and run for the hills with my linux box, if Windows was patched in a timely matter instead of being vulnerable for weeks, months, 17 years or when the media s**ts their pants, then I just might look at using it.
Just a thought...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042882</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's part of WoW32, the old emulator for 16 bit applications.</p><p>Shockingly, this shouldn't exist in any of the 64-bit windows versions because they don't have WoW32 (they have WoW64, and drop support altogether for 16 bit).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's part of WoW32 , the old emulator for 16 bit applications.Shockingly , this should n't exist in any of the 64-bit windows versions because they do n't have WoW32 ( they have WoW64 , and drop support altogether for 16 bit ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's part of WoW32, the old emulator for 16 bit applications.Shockingly, this shouldn't exist in any of the 64-bit windows versions because they don't have WoW32 (they have WoW64, and drop support altogether for 16 bit).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043414</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1265393040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be honest, it doesn't sound that dangerous if it took that damn long to figure it out. Now it is, but its getting patched.

Question here is, did anyone know about it before and abuse it while keeping tight lips? If so, they may really pissed to know its done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , it does n't sound that dangerous if it took that damn long to figure it out .
Now it is , but its getting patched .
Question here is , did anyone know about it before and abuse it while keeping tight lips ?
If so , they may really pissed to know its done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, it doesn't sound that dangerous if it took that damn long to figure it out.
Now it is, but its getting patched.
Question here is, did anyone know about it before and abuse it while keeping tight lips?
If so, they may really pissed to know its done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042986</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really<p>
It's since Windows NT 3.1 not Windows 3.1.  The first is 32bit and the latter is 16bit.  And no the code set is not the same in Windows 3.1 and Windows NT any version...</p><p>
Anyways, check the article and wikipedia the rest if you really want to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really It 's since Windows NT 3.1 not Windows 3.1 .
The first is 32bit and the latter is 16bit .
And no the code set is not the same in Windows 3.1 and Windows NT any version.. . Anyways , check the article and wikipedia the rest if you really want to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really
It's since Windows NT 3.1 not Windows 3.1.
The first is 32bit and the latter is 16bit.
And no the code set is not the same in Windows 3.1 and Windows NT any version...
Anyways, check the article and wikipedia the rest if you really want to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046042</id>
	<title>Windows is scary</title>
	<author>Asaf.Zamir</author>
	<datestamp>1265477160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Windows 7 is scaring me more and more these days, that's the last thing I needed!

17 Years? Well Microsoft, looking forward for a reason not to go Open Source with my software..


Moving to Ubuntu.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Windows 7 is scaring me more and more these days , that 's the last thing I needed !
17 Years ?
Well Microsoft , looking forward for a reason not to go Open Source with my software. . Moving to Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Windows 7 is scaring me more and more these days, that's the last thing I needed!
17 Years?
Well Microsoft, looking forward for a reason not to go Open Source with my software..


Moving to Ubuntu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043562</id>
	<title>Re:sigh...</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1265395320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet another reason I avoid Windows and run for the hills with my linux box, if Windows was patched in a timely matter instead of being vulnerable for weeks, months, 17 years or when the media s**ts their pants, then I just might look at using it.</p></div><p>A.) You don't understand what really happened here.  You should read the +5's  in this thread before reading the next part of my post.</p><p>B.) There is absolutely <i>nothing</i> preventing Linux or anything else from having a problem like this.  In fact, this is quite the cautionary tale for anybody running a computer.  Your computer has a number of exploitable bugs in it right this second.  Your machine is not safe.  You need to install updates.  You need network protection, firewall, etc.  You need to make backups.  You need to <i>not</i> run every executable you find from un-trusted sources.  You need to use good practices when dealing with sensitive data.  Running Linux, BSD, OSX, whatever, doesn't alleviate <i>any</i> of these concerns.</p><p>C.) Summaries often contain more information than the headline does.  They also usually have links you can click on to get even more info.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason I avoid Windows and run for the hills with my linux box , if Windows was patched in a timely matter instead of being vulnerable for weeks , months , 17 years or when the media s * * ts their pants , then I just might look at using it.A .
) You do n't understand what really happened here .
You should read the + 5 's in this thread before reading the next part of my post.B .
) There is absolutely nothing preventing Linux or anything else from having a problem like this .
In fact , this is quite the cautionary tale for anybody running a computer .
Your computer has a number of exploitable bugs in it right this second .
Your machine is not safe .
You need to install updates .
You need network protection , firewall , etc .
You need to make backups .
You need to not run every executable you find from un-trusted sources .
You need to use good practices when dealing with sensitive data .
Running Linux , BSD , OSX , whatever , does n't alleviate any of these concerns.C .
) Summaries often contain more information than the headline does .
They also usually have links you can click on to get even more info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason I avoid Windows and run for the hills with my linux box, if Windows was patched in a timely matter instead of being vulnerable for weeks, months, 17 years or when the media s**ts their pants, then I just might look at using it.A.
) You don't understand what really happened here.
You should read the +5's  in this thread before reading the next part of my post.B.
) There is absolutely nothing preventing Linux or anything else from having a problem like this.
In fact, this is quite the cautionary tale for anybody running a computer.
Your computer has a number of exploitable bugs in it right this second.
Your machine is not safe.
You need to install updates.
You need network protection, firewall, etc.
You need to make backups.
You need to not run every executable you find from un-trusted sources.
You need to use good practices when dealing with sensitive data.
Running Linux, BSD, OSX, whatever, doesn't alleviate any of these concerns.C.
) Summaries often contain more information than the headline does.
They also usually have links you can click on to get even more info.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042802</id>
	<title>Windows NT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't Windows NT developed from the ground up separately from DOS? If it's developed separately from DOS (no copy and paste), would it really have the same bugs as DOS (for all intents and purposes an unrelated operating system). This feels like to me Microsoft fixing an error that has been around ever since Linux...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't Windows NT developed from the ground up separately from DOS ?
If it 's developed separately from DOS ( no copy and paste ) , would it really have the same bugs as DOS ( for all intents and purposes an unrelated operating system ) .
This feels like to me Microsoft fixing an error that has been around ever since Linux.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't Windows NT developed from the ground up separately from DOS?
If it's developed separately from DOS (no copy and paste), would it really have the same bugs as DOS (for all intents and purposes an unrelated operating system).
This feels like to me Microsoft fixing an error that has been around ever since Linux...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042798</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1265386560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has to my knowledge, nothing to do with the kernel.  It's a bug in a program used to run older applications.  It was only found to be a problem very recently.  Until now there was no real understanding that the bug existed and thus no reason to change that part of the OSes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to my knowledge , nothing to do with the kernel .
It 's a bug in a program used to run older applications .
It was only found to be a problem very recently .
Until now there was no real understanding that the bug existed and thus no reason to change that part of the OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to my knowledge, nothing to do with the kernel.
It's a bug in a program used to run older applications.
It was only found to be a problem very recently.
Until now there was no real understanding that the bug existed and thus no reason to change that part of the OSes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046790</id>
	<title>Re:"Finally"?</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1265483340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That it was introduced 17 years ago doesn't mean that Microsoft has been tardy about fixing it...</p></div></blockquote><p>So, what you're saying is...if say I made a car, it had one or more acceleration issue for several years, I tried fixing the problems years ago, many times saying the car is now safe, but people still keep telling me they have issues; so, there's nothing "tardy" about my fixing the problem?</p><p>No, the real question is, why is it that Toyota had to pull cars off their sales floor, being not allowed to sell a known defective product, and Microsoft is still selling incremental versions of Windows while basically every month for years admitted they're selling a defective product?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That it was introduced 17 years ago does n't mean that Microsoft has been tardy about fixing it...So , what you 're saying is...if say I made a car , it had one or more acceleration issue for several years , I tried fixing the problems years ago , many times saying the car is now safe , but people still keep telling me they have issues ; so , there 's nothing " tardy " about my fixing the problem ? No , the real question is , why is it that Toyota had to pull cars off their sales floor , being not allowed to sell a known defective product , and Microsoft is still selling incremental versions of Windows while basically every month for years admitted they 're selling a defective product ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That it was introduced 17 years ago doesn't mean that Microsoft has been tardy about fixing it...So, what you're saying is...if say I made a car, it had one or more acceleration issue for several years, I tried fixing the problems years ago, many times saying the car is now safe, but people still keep telling me they have issues; so, there's nothing "tardy" about my fixing the problem?No, the real question is, why is it that Toyota had to pull cars off their sales floor, being not allowed to sell a known defective product, and Microsoft is still selling incremental versions of Windows while basically every month for years admitted they're selling a defective product?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043026</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31055212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31045620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0158248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31045478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31047152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31055212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31046290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31045620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31044898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31045478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0158248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31043562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0158248.31042956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
