<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_24_235249</id>
	<title>GoDaddy Wants Your Root Password</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267014000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://moc.liamgtaodnomnez/" rel="nofollow">Johnny Fusion</a> writes <i>"The writer of the Securi Security Blog had an alarming awakening when a honeypot on port 22 on a GoDaddy-hosted VPS recorded login attempts using his GoDaddy username and password and even an <a href="http://blog.sucuri.net/2010/02/godaddy-store-your-passwords-in-clear.html">attempt to login as root</a>.  It turns out the attempt was actually from within GoDaddy's network.  Before he could 'alert' GoDaddy about the security breach, he got an email from GoDaddy Demanding his root login credentials.
There is an update where <a href="http://blog.sucuri.net/2010/02/godaddy-security-update.html">GoDaddy explains itself</a> and says they will change policy."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Johnny Fusion writes " The writer of the Securi Security Blog had an alarming awakening when a honeypot on port 22 on a GoDaddy-hosted VPS recorded login attempts using his GoDaddy username and password and even an attempt to login as root .
It turns out the attempt was actually from within GoDaddy 's network .
Before he could 'alert ' GoDaddy about the security breach , he got an email from GoDaddy Demanding his root login credentials .
There is an update where GoDaddy explains itself and says they will change policy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Johnny Fusion writes "The writer of the Securi Security Blog had an alarming awakening when a honeypot on port 22 on a GoDaddy-hosted VPS recorded login attempts using his GoDaddy username and password and even an attempt to login as root.
It turns out the attempt was actually from within GoDaddy's network.
Before he could 'alert' GoDaddy about the security breach, he got an email from GoDaddy Demanding his root login credentials.
There is an update where GoDaddy explains itself and says they will change policy.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267394</id>
	<title>Story about GoDaddy being spammer-friendly</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1265120880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quote from the Slashdot story, <a href="//it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/06/162247" title="slashdot.org">KnujOn Updates Top 10
Spam-Friendly Registrars List</a> [slashdot.org]: <i>"Network Solutions and GoDaddy sister
company Wild West domains - have popped up on the </i>[spammer-friendly]<i> list."</i> (2009-02-06)</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote from the Slashdot story , KnujOn Updates Top 10 Spam-Friendly Registrars List [ slashdot.org ] : " Network Solutions and GoDaddy sister company Wild West domains - have popped up on the [ spammer-friendly ] list .
" ( 2009-02-06 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote from the Slashdot story, KnujOn Updates Top 10
Spam-Friendly Registrars List [slashdot.org]: "Network Solutions and GoDaddy sister
company Wild West domains - have popped up on the [spammer-friendly] list.
" (2009-02-06)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267176</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TWSS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TWSS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TWSS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272544</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1267116000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes and no. It&rsquo;s like having an apartment. The landlord might own it. But it&rsquo;s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it. It&rsquo;s the same thing as breaking it.</p><p>The question of trust was not the point. The point is, that the landlord is telling you, to give you a copy of keys of the apartment, or he&rsquo;d throw you out.<br>In Germany, he would get dragged to court, and lose big time, when trying this on anyone.</p><p>The same should be true for GoDaddy. Everything else would be laws not keeping up with progress.</p></div><p>I guess you've never lived in an apartment.</p><p>Your landlord has a copy of your key already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
It    s like having an apartment .
The landlord might own it .
But it    s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it .
It    s the same thing as breaking it.The question of trust was not the point .
The point is , that the landlord is telling you , to give you a copy of keys of the apartment , or he    d throw you out.In Germany , he would get dragged to court , and lose big time , when trying this on anyone.The same should be true for GoDaddy .
Everything else would be laws not keeping up with progress.I guess you 've never lived in an apartment.Your landlord has a copy of your key already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
It’s like having an apartment.
The landlord might own it.
But it’s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it.
It’s the same thing as breaking it.The question of trust was not the point.
The point is, that the landlord is telling you, to give you a copy of keys of the apartment, or he’d throw you out.In Germany, he would get dragged to court, and lose big time, when trying this on anyone.The same should be true for GoDaddy.
Everything else would be laws not keeping up with progress.I guess you've never lived in an apartment.Your landlord has a copy of your key already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267370</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy. He is pro-violence: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050622022751/http://bobparsons.com/CloseGitmoNowayThinkourinterrogationmethodsaretoughPrisonersintheMiddleEasttalkquickHereswhyt.html" title="archive.org" rel="nofollow">Close Gitmo? No way!!</a> [archive.org]</p> </div><p>When you cite the man's blog that has absolutely nothing to do with the hosting company he is CEO of, to state that he is "pro-violence", you kind of blow your the credibility of your argument. Please keep your personal political opinions out of non-political debates. What you did there is no better than any other meritless political smear campaign.</p><p>The rest of your post was spot-on, though, and I wouldn't trust GoDaddy with my first name.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons , the owner of GoDaddy .
He is pro-violence : Close Gitmo ?
No way ! !
[ archive.org ] When you cite the man 's blog that has absolutely nothing to do with the hosting company he is CEO of , to state that he is " pro-violence " , you kind of blow your the credibility of your argument .
Please keep your personal political opinions out of non-political debates .
What you did there is no better than any other meritless political smear campaign.The rest of your post was spot-on , though , and I would n't trust GoDaddy with my first name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy.
He is pro-violence: Close Gitmo?
No way!!
[archive.org] When you cite the man's blog that has absolutely nothing to do with the hosting company he is CEO of, to state that he is "pro-violence", you kind of blow your the credibility of your argument.
Please keep your personal political opinions out of non-political debates.
What you did there is no better than any other meritless political smear campaign.The rest of your post was spot-on, though, and I wouldn't trust GoDaddy with my first name.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267712</id>
	<title>If they want my root password</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all they need to do is send Danica over to ask for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all they need to do is send Danica over to ask for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all they need to do is send Danica over to ask for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267798</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1265124660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That's not the question. The question is</i>...<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...why does anyone use them? Don't they know there are other hosts that don't use such tactics or resort to ridiculous tv commercials?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the question .
The question is... ...why does anyone use them ?
Do n't they know there are other hosts that do n't use such tactics or resort to ridiculous tv commercials ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the question.
The question is...  ...why does anyone use them?
Don't they know there are other hosts that don't use such tactics or resort to ridiculous tv commercials?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267010</id>
	<title>Re:No Surprises Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265117520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to include some proof to backup your claim?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to include some proof to backup your claim ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to include some proof to backup your claim?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269450</id>
	<title>Give me your root password</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267129860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or will Daddy have to spank you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or will Daddy have to spank you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or will Daddy have to spank you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268668</id>
	<title>Well, seems a reasonable misunderstanding.</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1265133480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Godaddy already had the root password, presumably from when you set the VPS up.</p><p>- We have no way of knowing that they store these in cleartext that I can see, unless I missed something.</p><p>The abnormal (not wrong, just not what most people do) setup with the honeypot allowed their security scanner to think it had logged into your box successfully using a brute-force method.</p><p>They then found they could not *actively* log in with the password on file, because they were hitting a honeypot, not the real SSH port.</p><p>They followed up with an email to what they thought was an infected box.</p><p>So - glad they are changing policy - but even more glad they are at least pro-active about it. For every securiyt-conscious admin such as indicated here, there are tons and tons of VPS out there without even minimal security practices.</p><p>Basically, it looks like a process mismatch between the expectations of godaddy and the guy managing the server..... nothing that you can't work out, and you get what you  pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Godaddy already had the root password , presumably from when you set the VPS up.- We have no way of knowing that they store these in cleartext that I can see , unless I missed something.The abnormal ( not wrong , just not what most people do ) setup with the honeypot allowed their security scanner to think it had logged into your box successfully using a brute-force method.They then found they could not * actively * log in with the password on file , because they were hitting a honeypot , not the real SSH port.They followed up with an email to what they thought was an infected box.So - glad they are changing policy - but even more glad they are at least pro-active about it .
For every securiyt-conscious admin such as indicated here , there are tons and tons of VPS out there without even minimal security practices.Basically , it looks like a process mismatch between the expectations of godaddy and the guy managing the server..... nothing that you ca n't work out , and you get what you pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Godaddy already had the root password, presumably from when you set the VPS up.- We have no way of knowing that they store these in cleartext that I can see, unless I missed something.The abnormal (not wrong, just not what most people do) setup with the honeypot allowed their security scanner to think it had logged into your box successfully using a brute-force method.They then found they could not *actively* log in with the password on file, because they were hitting a honeypot, not the real SSH port.They followed up with an email to what they thought was an infected box.So - glad they are changing policy - but even more glad they are at least pro-active about it.
For every securiyt-conscious admin such as indicated here, there are tons and tons of VPS out there without even minimal security practices.Basically, it looks like a process mismatch between the expectations of godaddy and the guy managing the server..... nothing that you can't work out, and you get what you  pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267838</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1265124960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people are missing the point. Obviously your hosting provider has access to your machine, and if they detect suspicious traffic, it's quite natural for them to log in and change things.</p><p>What is not okay is asking for passwords. They own the fucking VPS, if they want access they have it. Leaving sensitive passwords where anyone can reach them is a serious security breach. GoDaddy, if they need access to the VPS, should have a special administrative account for that purpose. They should not have a database where their employees can read everyone's passwords (no matter how well they secure it.) Passwords should always be salted and hashed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people are missing the point .
Obviously your hosting provider has access to your machine , and if they detect suspicious traffic , it 's quite natural for them to log in and change things.What is not okay is asking for passwords .
They own the fucking VPS , if they want access they have it .
Leaving sensitive passwords where anyone can reach them is a serious security breach .
GoDaddy , if they need access to the VPS , should have a special administrative account for that purpose .
They should not have a database where their employees can read everyone 's passwords ( no matter how well they secure it .
) Passwords should always be salted and hashed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people are missing the point.
Obviously your hosting provider has access to your machine, and if they detect suspicious traffic, it's quite natural for them to log in and change things.What is not okay is asking for passwords.
They own the fucking VPS, if they want access they have it.
Leaving sensitive passwords where anyone can reach them is a serious security breach.
GoDaddy, if they need access to the VPS, should have a special administrative account for that purpose.
They should not have a database where their employees can read everyone's passwords (no matter how well they secure it.
) Passwords should always be salted and hashed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31275234</id>
	<title>VPSs and root access</title>
	<author>jcam2</author>
	<datestamp>1267126020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a VPS, it really doesn't matter if the hosting company has your root password or not - they can directly access the filesystem to view or modify any files any time they want.</p><p>For some virtualization types (like Xen and KVM) it is more convenient for the host to know the root password so they can login to manage the VPS. Without it, filesystem access requires that the VPS be shut down, with is worse for everyone.</p><p>For other types like OpenVZ, the host can login as root any time they want, without even knowing the password.</p><p>In the case of GoDaddy, they would probably be better off setting up VPSs they sell with an additional root-equivalent account or using SSH keys - that way the customer can keep their root password secret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a VPS , it really does n't matter if the hosting company has your root password or not - they can directly access the filesystem to view or modify any files any time they want.For some virtualization types ( like Xen and KVM ) it is more convenient for the host to know the root password so they can login to manage the VPS .
Without it , filesystem access requires that the VPS be shut down , with is worse for everyone.For other types like OpenVZ , the host can login as root any time they want , without even knowing the password.In the case of GoDaddy , they would probably be better off setting up VPSs they sell with an additional root-equivalent account or using SSH keys - that way the customer can keep their root password secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a VPS, it really doesn't matter if the hosting company has your root password or not - they can directly access the filesystem to view or modify any files any time they want.For some virtualization types (like Xen and KVM) it is more convenient for the host to know the root password so they can login to manage the VPS.
Without it, filesystem access requires that the VPS be shut down, with is worse for everyone.For other types like OpenVZ, the host can login as root any time they want, without even knowing the password.In the case of GoDaddy, they would probably be better off setting up VPSs they sell with an additional root-equivalent account or using SSH keys - that way the customer can keep their root password secret.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268486</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes and no. It&rsquo;s like having an apartment. The landlord might own it. But it&rsquo;s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it. It&rsquo;s the same thing as breaking it</p></div><p>I'm not sure about Germany, but in the US...</p><p>Most leases give the landlord ability to enter the apartment for any reason given 24 hours notice, or with no notice in an emergency situation.  What landlord doesn't have his own set of keys?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
It    s like having an apartment .
The landlord might own it .
But it    s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it .
It    s the same thing as breaking itI 'm not sure about Germany , but in the US...Most leases give the landlord ability to enter the apartment for any reason given 24 hours notice , or with no notice in an emergency situation .
What landlord does n't have his own set of keys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
It’s like having an apartment.
The landlord might own it.
But it’s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it.
It’s the same thing as breaking itI'm not sure about Germany, but in the US...Most leases give the landlord ability to enter the apartment for any reason given 24 hours notice, or with no notice in an emergency situation.
What landlord doesn't have his own set of keys?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267104</id>
	<title>Christian morality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't surprising coming from a company founded on Christian* values.</p><p>*The distorted Protestant American version of the faith.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't surprising coming from a company founded on Christian * values .
* The distorted Protestant American version of the faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't surprising coming from a company founded on Christian* values.
*The distorted Protestant American version of the faith.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31282450</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>AzuMao</author>
	<datestamp>1267217880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You already trust them 100\% if you let them have access to your box</p></div><p>FDE + temp sensor in RAM that trashes the key if it's cooled = you don't have to trust them at all. Just be sure to pick an OS that won't need rebooted ever. And disable 1394.</p><p>If it needs to be secure through reboots, you'll have to find/make a case that destroys the drives if someone opens/breaches it.</p><p>So ya, some measures need taken, but it's far from impossible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You already trust them 100 \ % if you let them have access to your boxFDE + temp sensor in RAM that trashes the key if it 's cooled = you do n't have to trust them at all .
Just be sure to pick an OS that wo n't need rebooted ever .
And disable 1394.If it needs to be secure through reboots , you 'll have to find/make a case that destroys the drives if someone opens/breaches it.So ya , some measures need taken , but it 's far from impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You already trust them 100\% if you let them have access to your boxFDE + temp sensor in RAM that trashes the key if it's cooled = you don't have to trust them at all.
Just be sure to pick an OS that won't need rebooted ever.
And disable 1394.If it needs to be secure through reboots, you'll have to find/make a case that destroys the drives if someone opens/breaches it.So ya, some measures need taken, but it's far from impossible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267618</id>
	<title>Re:No Surprises Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was back in 2005, but lucky for me gmail archives everything.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><blockquote><div><p>Dear *******,</p><p>Thank you for contacting Go Daddy's Spam and Abuse Department.</p><p>Go Daddy defines spam as any communication sent to recipients, as an<br>advertisement or otherwise, without first obtaining prior confirmed consent<br>to receive these communications from your domain by the recipient. This<br>includes, but is not limited to, the following:</p><p>- Email Messages<br>- Newsgroup postings<br>- Windows system messages<br>- Pop-up messages (aka "adware" or "spyware" messages)<br>- Instant messages (using AOL, MSN, Yahoo or other instant messenger<br>programs)<br>- Online chat room advertisements<br>- Guestbook or Website Forum postings</p><p>It appears that the complaint we've received regard off-topic or<br>unauthorized email advertisements. A copy of one of the<br>offending advertisement has attached to this message.</p><p>Please keep in mind that it is not our intention to cause anyone's business<br>to suffer and we do appreciate your cooperating with us on this matter.<br>Because of your cooperation and willingness to resolve this issue thus far,<br>your services have not been interrupted, but this situation remains<br>unresolved.</p><p>At this point you have two options available to you, each is outlined below:</p><p>----- Option #1: Discontinue all future unauthorized advertising practices.</p><p>If you wish to remain a Go Daddy customer and close this matter, you must<br>reply to abuse@godaddy.com with the following:</p><p>1. A statement that you (or your employees, affiliates, 3rd party marketers,<br>etc.) will no longer advertise or promote your domain name using<br>unauthorized instant messenger advertisements or any other unauthorized form<br>of communication.</p><p>2. Authorization for GoDaddy.com to charge a $199 non-refundable<br>administration fee* to the credit card on file for your account.</p><p>If you reply with this statement and agree to pay this fee, Go Daddy will<br>accept, in good faith, your commitment as proof of your desire to correct<br>this problem.</p><p>Please be aware that Go Daddy will continue to monitor this situation. If<br>after you commit to ceasing this activity it is determined that this problem<br>persists, your domain name may be immediately redirected and your service<br>suspended. We realize additional complaints resulting from the posts you<br>have just committed to stop may come in and we will of course consider this,<br>and contact you before taking action.</p><p>----- Option #2: Transfer your domain name to another registrar.</p><p>If option #1 is not agreeable to you, or you are unable to comply with these<br>terms, you must transfer your domain name to another registrar. We first<br>require that you pay a $50 administration fee before allowing you to proceed<br>with your transfer. Again this fee used to offset the costs of "cleaning up"<br>the outstanding spam complaints against your domain name.</p><p>You will need to provide the following in your reply:</p><p>1. A statement that you will initiate the transfer of your domain name to a<br>new registrar within the next 24 hours.</p><p>2. Authorization for GoDaddy.com to charge a $50 administration fee* to the<br>credit card on file for your account.</p><p>----</p><p>* You may want to log into your Go Daddy account and confirm that the card<br>on file is valid and has not expired.</p><p>-----</p><p>*PLEASE NOTE: If you do not follow one of the options outlined above your<br>domain name may be immediately redirected and your service suspended.</p><p>-----</p><p>Please let us know what option you choose, thank you for your cooperation.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Spam and Abuse Department<br>GoDaddy.com</p></div></blockquote><p>When I refused both those options (since I had paid for a years worth of registration and didn't feel like paying any penalties, they told me they would change my dns info without my permission).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was back in 2005 , but lucky for me gmail archives everything .
; ) Dear * * * * * * * ,Thank you for contacting Go Daddy 's Spam and Abuse Department.Go Daddy defines spam as any communication sent to recipients , as anadvertisement or otherwise , without first obtaining prior confirmed consentto receive these communications from your domain by the recipient .
Thisincludes , but is not limited to , the following : - Email Messages- Newsgroup postings- Windows system messages- Pop-up messages ( aka " adware " or " spyware " messages ) - Instant messages ( using AOL , MSN , Yahoo or other instant messengerprograms ) - Online chat room advertisements- Guestbook or Website Forum postingsIt appears that the complaint we 've received regard off-topic orunauthorized email advertisements .
A copy of one of theoffending advertisement has attached to this message.Please keep in mind that it is not our intention to cause anyone 's businessto suffer and we do appreciate your cooperating with us on this matter.Because of your cooperation and willingness to resolve this issue thus far,your services have not been interrupted , but this situation remainsunresolved.At this point you have two options available to you , each is outlined below : ----- Option # 1 : Discontinue all future unauthorized advertising practices.If you wish to remain a Go Daddy customer and close this matter , you mustreply to abuse @ godaddy.com with the following : 1 .
A statement that you ( or your employees , affiliates , 3rd party marketers,etc .
) will no longer advertise or promote your domain name usingunauthorized instant messenger advertisements or any other unauthorized formof communication.2 .
Authorization for GoDaddy.com to charge a $ 199 non-refundableadministration fee * to the credit card on file for your account.If you reply with this statement and agree to pay this fee , Go Daddy willaccept , in good faith , your commitment as proof of your desire to correctthis problem.Please be aware that Go Daddy will continue to monitor this situation .
Ifafter you commit to ceasing this activity it is determined that this problempersists , your domain name may be immediately redirected and your servicesuspended .
We realize additional complaints resulting from the posts youhave just committed to stop may come in and we will of course consider this,and contact you before taking action.----- Option # 2 : Transfer your domain name to another registrar.If option # 1 is not agreeable to you , or you are unable to comply with theseterms , you must transfer your domain name to another registrar .
We firstrequire that you pay a $ 50 administration fee before allowing you to proceedwith your transfer .
Again this fee used to offset the costs of " cleaning up " the outstanding spam complaints against your domain name.You will need to provide the following in your reply : 1 .
A statement that you will initiate the transfer of your domain name to anew registrar within the next 24 hours.2 .
Authorization for GoDaddy.com to charge a $ 50 administration fee * to thecredit card on file for your account.---- * You may want to log into your Go Daddy account and confirm that the cardon file is valid and has not expired.----- * PLEASE NOTE : If you do not follow one of the options outlined above yourdomain name may be immediately redirected and your service suspended.-----Please let us know what option you choose , thank you for your cooperation.Sincerely,Spam and Abuse DepartmentGoDaddy.comWhen I refused both those options ( since I had paid for a years worth of registration and did n't feel like paying any penalties , they told me they would change my dns info without my permission ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was back in 2005, but lucky for me gmail archives everything.
;)Dear *******,Thank you for contacting Go Daddy's Spam and Abuse Department.Go Daddy defines spam as any communication sent to recipients, as anadvertisement or otherwise, without first obtaining prior confirmed consentto receive these communications from your domain by the recipient.
Thisincludes, but is not limited to, the following:- Email Messages- Newsgroup postings- Windows system messages- Pop-up messages (aka "adware" or "spyware" messages)- Instant messages (using AOL, MSN, Yahoo or other instant messengerprograms)- Online chat room advertisements- Guestbook or Website Forum postingsIt appears that the complaint we've received regard off-topic orunauthorized email advertisements.
A copy of one of theoffending advertisement has attached to this message.Please keep in mind that it is not our intention to cause anyone's businessto suffer and we do appreciate your cooperating with us on this matter.Because of your cooperation and willingness to resolve this issue thus far,your services have not been interrupted, but this situation remainsunresolved.At this point you have two options available to you, each is outlined below:----- Option #1: Discontinue all future unauthorized advertising practices.If you wish to remain a Go Daddy customer and close this matter, you mustreply to abuse@godaddy.com with the following:1.
A statement that you (or your employees, affiliates, 3rd party marketers,etc.
) will no longer advertise or promote your domain name usingunauthorized instant messenger advertisements or any other unauthorized formof communication.2.
Authorization for GoDaddy.com to charge a $199 non-refundableadministration fee* to the credit card on file for your account.If you reply with this statement and agree to pay this fee, Go Daddy willaccept, in good faith, your commitment as proof of your desire to correctthis problem.Please be aware that Go Daddy will continue to monitor this situation.
Ifafter you commit to ceasing this activity it is determined that this problempersists, your domain name may be immediately redirected and your servicesuspended.
We realize additional complaints resulting from the posts youhave just committed to stop may come in and we will of course consider this,and contact you before taking action.----- Option #2: Transfer your domain name to another registrar.If option #1 is not agreeable to you, or you are unable to comply with theseterms, you must transfer your domain name to another registrar.
We firstrequire that you pay a $50 administration fee before allowing you to proceedwith your transfer.
Again this fee used to offset the costs of "cleaning up"the outstanding spam complaints against your domain name.You will need to provide the following in your reply:1.
A statement that you will initiate the transfer of your domain name to anew registrar within the next 24 hours.2.
Authorization for GoDaddy.com to charge a $50 administration fee* to thecredit card on file for your account.----* You may want to log into your Go Daddy account and confirm that the cardon file is valid and has not expired.-----*PLEASE NOTE: If you do not follow one of the options outlined above yourdomain name may be immediately redirected and your service suspended.-----Please let us know what option you choose, thank you for your cooperation.Sincerely,Spam and Abuse DepartmentGoDaddy.comWhen I refused both those options (since I had paid for a years worth of registration and didn't feel like paying any penalties, they told me they would change my dns info without my permission).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267006</id>
	<title>Thats scary....</title>
	<author>DJ DeFi</author>
	<datestamp>1265117520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back up your data and move to a new host...don't forget to change the passwords though!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back up your data and move to a new host...do n't forget to change the passwords though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back up your data and move to a new host...don't forget to change the passwords though!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267558</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1265122320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable."</p><p>I work nights.  Sometimes, I'm actually in the shop to listen to the radio.  It seems that every 15 minutes, one company or another is pitching some worthless product, trying to scare the dumb consumer into purchasing some "security" product.</p><p>"Hi, I'm former Police Chief Frazzle Brain.  Did you know that online indentity theft is the fastest growing crime in America?  Send me $100 and I'll protect you!"</p><p>Can't help wondering how many clueless people send him the money . . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they do n't need and presenting them as valuable .
" I work nights .
Sometimes , I 'm actually in the shop to listen to the radio .
It seems that every 15 minutes , one company or another is pitching some worthless product , trying to scare the dumb consumer into purchasing some " security " product .
" Hi , I 'm former Police Chief Frazzle Brain .
Did you know that online indentity theft is the fastest growing crime in America ?
Send me $ 100 and I 'll protect you !
" Ca n't help wondering how many clueless people send him the money .
. .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable.
"I work nights.
Sometimes, I'm actually in the shop to listen to the radio.
It seems that every 15 minutes, one company or another is pitching some worthless product, trying to scare the dumb consumer into purchasing some "security" product.
"Hi, I'm former Police Chief Frazzle Brain.
Did you know that online indentity theft is the fastest growing crime in America?
Send me $100 and I'll protect you!
"Can't help wondering how many clueless people send him the money .
. .
.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267356</id>
	<title>Always seperate hosting, dns, and registeration</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1265120400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone that has been around the block with running a lot of web sites (well, a couple thousand at least) for say the last 10 years, I have learned the hard way to not put all your eggs in one basket.  Registries come and go, even the big boys (at least service comes and goes, policies change), hosting providers can go bad for all kinds of reasons, and your DNS services are your keys to the castle in terms of just how much damage an outage can do to a buisness (backup DNS severs people).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone that has been around the block with running a lot of web sites ( well , a couple thousand at least ) for say the last 10 years , I have learned the hard way to not put all your eggs in one basket .
Registries come and go , even the big boys ( at least service comes and goes , policies change ) , hosting providers can go bad for all kinds of reasons , and your DNS services are your keys to the castle in terms of just how much damage an outage can do to a buisness ( backup DNS severs people ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone that has been around the block with running a lot of web sites (well, a couple thousand at least) for say the last 10 years, I have learned the hard way to not put all your eggs in one basket.
Registries come and go, even the big boys (at least service comes and goes, policies change), hosting providers can go bad for all kinds of reasons, and your DNS services are your keys to the castle in terms of just how much damage an outage can do to a buisness (backup DNS severs people).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268116</id>
	<title>Re:Another story, partly about GoDaddy. Chilling.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another quote from that Slashdot story: <i>"GoDaddy (and their reseller arm, Wild West Domains) have a different problem: They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant's contact update, even after the ICANN update specifically prohibited doing so."</i></p> </div><p>It gets worse.  GoDaddy forces an update of 'invalid' contact details (which may have been inherited from a previous transfer) when trying to change an admin address (to transfer the domain out).  GoDaddy then forces you to agree to a 60 day transfer hold via a checkbox because the said details were changed.  Online support refuses to change just the admin email. This isn't just against the ICANN rules, this is thuggery.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another quote from that Slashdot story : " GoDaddy ( and their reseller arm , Wild West Domains ) have a different problem : They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant 's contact update , even after the ICANN update specifically prohibited doing so .
" It gets worse .
GoDaddy forces an update of 'invalid ' contact details ( which may have been inherited from a previous transfer ) when trying to change an admin address ( to transfer the domain out ) .
GoDaddy then forces you to agree to a 60 day transfer hold via a checkbox because the said details were changed .
Online support refuses to change just the admin email .
This is n't just against the ICANN rules , this is thuggery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another quote from that Slashdot story: "GoDaddy (and their reseller arm, Wild West Domains) have a different problem: They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant's contact update, even after the ICANN update specifically prohibited doing so.
" It gets worse.
GoDaddy forces an update of 'invalid' contact details (which may have been inherited from a previous transfer) when trying to change an admin address (to transfer the domain out).
GoDaddy then forces you to agree to a 60 day transfer hold via a checkbox because the said details were changed.
Online support refuses to change just the admin email.
This isn't just against the ICANN rules, this is thuggery.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268274</id>
	<title>Re:I always wondered what use GoDaddy is</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265129100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Should I be using a different registrar for cheap domain registration? Who is cheaper?</i></p><p>Are you squatting on domains?  If so, stop that.  If not you can afford the $15/yr that a reliable/competent outfit like <a href="http://dyndns.com/" title="dyndns.com">DynDNS</a> [dyndns.com] will charge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should I be using a different registrar for cheap domain registration ?
Who is cheaper ? Are you squatting on domains ?
If so , stop that .
If not you can afford the $ 15/yr that a reliable/competent outfit like DynDNS [ dyndns.com ] will charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should I be using a different registrar for cheap domain registration?
Who is cheaper?Are you squatting on domains?
If so, stop that.
If not you can afford the $15/yr that a reliable/competent outfit like DynDNS [dyndns.com] will charge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267324</id>
	<title>Another story, partly about GoDaddy. Chilling.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1265120220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quote from the story, <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/22/2023247" title="slashdot.org">Registrars Still Ignoring ICANN Rules</a> [slashdot.org]: <i>"Over a year ago ICANN moved to clean up misbehaving registrars like GoDaddy..."</i> (2009-07-22)

<br> <br>Another quote from that Slashdot story: <i>"GoDaddy (and their reseller arm, Wild West Domains) have a different problem: They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant's contact update, even after the ICANN update specifically prohibited doing so."</i></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote from the story , Registrars Still Ignoring ICANN Rules [ slashdot.org ] : " Over a year ago ICANN moved to clean up misbehaving registrars like GoDaddy... " ( 2009-07-22 ) Another quote from that Slashdot story : " GoDaddy ( and their reseller arm , Wild West Domains ) have a different problem : They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant 's contact update , even after the ICANN update specifically prohibited doing so .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote from the story, Registrars Still Ignoring ICANN Rules [slashdot.org]: "Over a year ago ICANN moved to clean up misbehaving registrars like GoDaddy..." (2009-07-22)

 Another quote from that Slashdot story: "GoDaddy (and their reseller arm, Wild West Domains) have a different problem: They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant's contact update, even after the ICANN update specifically prohibited doing so.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31275518</id>
	<title>Re:No Surprises Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267127100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It appears that the complaint we've received regard off-topic or
unauthorized email advertisements. A copy of one of the
offending advertisement has attached to this message.</p></div><p>
Where's the copy of the offending message they say was attached?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that the complaint we 've received regard off-topic or unauthorized email advertisements .
A copy of one of the offending advertisement has attached to this message .
Where 's the copy of the offending message they say was attached ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that the complaint we've received regard off-topic or
unauthorized email advertisements.
A copy of one of the
offending advertisement has attached to this message.
Where's the copy of the offending message they say was attached?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266948</id>
	<title>Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265117100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently submitter didn't RTFA.</p><p>Fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently submitter did n't RTFA.Fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently submitter didn't RTFA.Fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272088</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>lowrydr310</author>
	<datestamp>1267113360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't get me started on "Go Daddy." Aside from a ridiculous company name that is far from even whispering professionalism, I had an incident where I lost a domain to them because of their shady squatting practices.
<p>
I used GoDaddy to search the availability of my last name as a domain, about two or three times within a week, and then when I went to register it a short while later the domain was already freakin' registered by GoDaddy. They were squatting on my last name! This is NOT a common last name, and I didn't use any other registrar to search the availability. There's no chance in hell this was coincidence, GoDaddy intentionally did this. I had to wait a year for their registration to expire before I could finally register it myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me started on " Go Daddy .
" Aside from a ridiculous company name that is far from even whispering professionalism , I had an incident where I lost a domain to them because of their shady squatting practices .
I used GoDaddy to search the availability of my last name as a domain , about two or three times within a week , and then when I went to register it a short while later the domain was already freakin ' registered by GoDaddy .
They were squatting on my last name !
This is NOT a common last name , and I did n't use any other registrar to search the availability .
There 's no chance in hell this was coincidence , GoDaddy intentionally did this .
I had to wait a year for their registration to expire before I could finally register it myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me started on "Go Daddy.
" Aside from a ridiculous company name that is far from even whispering professionalism, I had an incident where I lost a domain to them because of their shady squatting practices.
I used GoDaddy to search the availability of my last name as a domain, about two or three times within a week, and then when I went to register it a short while later the domain was already freakin' registered by GoDaddy.
They were squatting on my last name!
This is NOT a common last name, and I didn't use any other registrar to search the availability.
There's no chance in hell this was coincidence, GoDaddy intentionally did this.
I had to wait a year for their registration to expire before I could finally register it myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266998</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1265117460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it before, i'll say it again.</p><p>Always use protection when VPS'ing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before , i 'll say it again.Always use protection when VPS'ing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before, i'll say it again.Always use protection when VPS'ing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960</id>
	<title>Feature, not a bug.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1265117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When my trivia game was hosted at EV1Servers (now part of The Planet company) I kept my root password on file with them at all times, and quite a few times support logged in and helped me with a problem, like telling me the reason my webserver went down was that the Warnings file in Apache had hit the Linux system limit.</p><p>This isn't GoDaddy the domain registrar looking for your passwords, this is GoDaddy the hosting provider wanting to log in to a customer's VPS that's running on their hardware, and most likely is calming down a paranoid admin if he's yelling at Slashdot about a "security breach" when support wanted to log in.</p><p>Nothing to see here... move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When my trivia game was hosted at EV1Servers ( now part of The Planet company ) I kept my root password on file with them at all times , and quite a few times support logged in and helped me with a problem , like telling me the reason my webserver went down was that the Warnings file in Apache had hit the Linux system limit.This is n't GoDaddy the domain registrar looking for your passwords , this is GoDaddy the hosting provider wanting to log in to a customer 's VPS that 's running on their hardware , and most likely is calming down a paranoid admin if he 's yelling at Slashdot about a " security breach " when support wanted to log in.Nothing to see here... move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my trivia game was hosted at EV1Servers (now part of The Planet company) I kept my root password on file with them at all times, and quite a few times support logged in and helped me with a problem, like telling me the reason my webserver went down was that the Warnings file in Apache had hit the Linux system limit.This isn't GoDaddy the domain registrar looking for your passwords, this is GoDaddy the hosting provider wanting to log in to a customer's VPS that's running on their hardware, and most likely is calming down a paranoid admin if he's yelling at Slashdot about a "security breach" when support wanted to log in.Nothing to see here... move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268784</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>John Meacham</author>
	<datestamp>1265134740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? that is crazy. I am in california and there are fairly strong restrictions on when a landlord can enter property and a lease can't change that. you can apparently look them up by state here:</p><p><a href="http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/rental\_assistance/tenantrights" title="hud.gov">http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/rental\_assistance/tenantrights</a> [hud.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
that is crazy .
I am in california and there are fairly strong restrictions on when a landlord can enter property and a lease ca n't change that .
you can apparently look them up by state here : http : //portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/rental \ _assistance/tenantrights [ hud.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
that is crazy.
I am in california and there are fairly strong restrictions on when a landlord can enter property and a lease can't change that.
you can apparently look them up by state here:http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/rental\_assistance/tenantrights [hud.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267126</id>
	<title>Color me surprised</title>
	<author>beefnog</author>
	<datestamp>1265118420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a title this inflammatory I could have sworn I was about to read a kdawson piece.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a title this inflammatory I could have sworn I was about to read a kdawson piece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a title this inflammatory I could have sworn I was about to read a kdawson piece.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272398</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>dgym</author>
	<datestamp>1267115340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We set up an authorized SSH key on every VPS at provisioning time, and <i>tell our customers about it</i>. However, as you state, having access is one thing and having permission to use that access is another entirely. We will only access a customer's VPS with their explicit consent, to do anything else would be immoral and illegal.
<br> <br>
This would be quite different if it was a managed VPS, as that implies permission, otherwise how would the hosting provider be able to manage it? However, it does not seem to be the case here.
<br> <br>
If the host found that the VPS was doing anything against their TOS (they suspected malware, and could have confirmed that from the network traffic) then the proper cause of action would be to notify the customer, and if they deemed it necessary they could have cut it off from the network until the customer responds. Attempting to gain unauthorized access is not the right approach, it is a quick way to lose customers and it is also illegal just about anywhere with computer crime laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We set up an authorized SSH key on every VPS at provisioning time , and tell our customers about it .
However , as you state , having access is one thing and having permission to use that access is another entirely .
We will only access a customer 's VPS with their explicit consent , to do anything else would be immoral and illegal .
This would be quite different if it was a managed VPS , as that implies permission , otherwise how would the hosting provider be able to manage it ?
However , it does not seem to be the case here .
If the host found that the VPS was doing anything against their TOS ( they suspected malware , and could have confirmed that from the network traffic ) then the proper cause of action would be to notify the customer , and if they deemed it necessary they could have cut it off from the network until the customer responds .
Attempting to gain unauthorized access is not the right approach , it is a quick way to lose customers and it is also illegal just about anywhere with computer crime laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We set up an authorized SSH key on every VPS at provisioning time, and tell our customers about it.
However, as you state, having access is one thing and having permission to use that access is another entirely.
We will only access a customer's VPS with their explicit consent, to do anything else would be immoral and illegal.
This would be quite different if it was a managed VPS, as that implies permission, otherwise how would the hosting provider be able to manage it?
However, it does not seem to be the case here.
If the host found that the VPS was doing anything against their TOS (they suspected malware, and could have confirmed that from the network traffic) then the proper cause of action would be to notify the customer, and if they deemed it necessary they could have cut it off from the network until the customer responds.
Attempting to gain unauthorized access is not the right approach, it is a quick way to lose customers and it is also illegal just about anywhere with computer crime laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</id>
	<title>The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1265119260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not the question. The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.

<br> <br>Judge for yourself. Here are some stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot, in order by
date:

<br> <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/27/1516227" title="slashdot.org">Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions</a> [slashdot.org] (2005-05-04)

<br> <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/08/236246" title="slashdot.org">GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari &amp; Opera</a> [slashdot.org] (2005-12-08)

<br> <a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/23/008229" title="slashdot.org">GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft</a> [slashdot.org] (2006-03-23)

<br> <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/17/1319233" title="slashdot.org">GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage</a> [slashdot.org] (2006-06-17)

<br> <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/16/1741242" title="slashdot.org">GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat</a> [slashdot.org] (2006-09-16)


<br> <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1542218" title="slashdot.org">MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site</a> [slashdot.org] (2007-01-26) That incident prompted this web site: <br> <a href="http://nodaddy.com/" title="nodaddy.com">Exposing the Many Reasons Not to Trust GoDaddy with Your
Domain Names</a> [nodaddy.com].

<br> <a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/03/0353231" title="slashdot.org">Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy?</a> [slashdot.org] (2007-02-03)

<br> <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/11/1853216" title="slashdot.org">GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover?</a> [slashdot.org] (2007-03-11)

<br> <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/29/1735250" title="slashdot.org">850K RegisterFly Domains Moved To GoDaddy</a> [slashdot.org] (2007-05-29)

<br>According to this March 11, 2008 story in Wired, GoDaddy shut down an entire web site of 250,000 pages because of one archived mailing list comment: <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/godaddy-silence.html" title="wired.com">GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com</a> [wired.com]. See below for Slashdot's story about RateMyCop.com.


<br> <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/12/1739228" title="slashdot.org">GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com</a> [slashdot.org] (2008-03-12)

<br> <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/08/0349253" title="slashdot.org">ICANN Moves Against GoDaddy Domain Lockdowns</a> [slashdot.org] (2008-04-08)

<br> <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/29/0625249" title="slashdot.org">GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers</a> [slashdot.org] (2008-06-29)

<br> <br>Those are just the stories until July of 2008.

<br> <br>GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of extremely negative stories. In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable.

<br> <br>Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy. He is pro-violence: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050622022751/http://bobparsons.com/CloseGitmoNowayThinkourinterrogationmethodsaretoughPrisonersintheMiddleEasttalkquickHereswhyt.html" title="archive.org">Close Gitmo? No way!!</a> [archive.org]

<br> <br>He uses women's bodies to advertise: <a href="http://www.bobparsons.tv/" title="bobparsons.tv">Bob Parson's Video Blog</a> [bobparsons.tv].</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the question .
The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy .
Judge for yourself .
Here are some stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot , in order by date : Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions [ slashdot.org ] ( 2005-05-04 ) GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari &amp; Opera [ slashdot.org ] ( 2005-12-08 ) GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft [ slashdot.org ] ( 2006-03-23 ) GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage [ slashdot.org ] ( 2006-06-17 ) GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat [ slashdot.org ] ( 2006-09-16 ) MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site [ slashdot.org ] ( 2007-01-26 ) That incident prompted this web site : Exposing the Many Reasons Not to Trust GoDaddy with Your Domain Names [ nodaddy.com ] .
Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy ?
[ slashdot.org ] ( 2007-02-03 ) GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover ?
[ slashdot.org ] ( 2007-03-11 ) 850K RegisterFly Domains Moved To GoDaddy [ slashdot.org ] ( 2007-05-29 ) According to this March 11 , 2008 story in Wired , GoDaddy shut down an entire web site of 250,000 pages because of one archived mailing list comment : GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com [ wired.com ] .
See below for Slashdot 's story about RateMyCop.com .
GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com [ slashdot.org ] ( 2008-03-12 ) ICANN Moves Against GoDaddy Domain Lockdowns [ slashdot.org ] ( 2008-04-08 ) GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers [ slashdot.org ] ( 2008-06-29 ) Those are just the stories until July of 2008 .
GoDaddy 's reputation is not just one of extremely negative stories .
In my opinion , GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they do n't need and presenting them as valuable .
Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons , the owner of GoDaddy .
He is pro-violence : Close Gitmo ?
No way ! !
[ archive.org ] He uses women 's bodies to advertise : Bob Parson 's Video Blog [ bobparsons.tv ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the question.
The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.
Judge for yourself.
Here are some stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot, in order by
date:

 Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions [slashdot.org] (2005-05-04)

 GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari &amp; Opera [slashdot.org] (2005-12-08)

 GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft [slashdot.org] (2006-03-23)

 GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage [slashdot.org] (2006-06-17)

 GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat [slashdot.org] (2006-09-16)


 MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site [slashdot.org] (2007-01-26) That incident prompted this web site:  Exposing the Many Reasons Not to Trust GoDaddy with Your
Domain Names [nodaddy.com].
Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy?
[slashdot.org] (2007-02-03)

 GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover?
[slashdot.org] (2007-03-11)

 850K RegisterFly Domains Moved To GoDaddy [slashdot.org] (2007-05-29)

According to this March 11, 2008 story in Wired, GoDaddy shut down an entire web site of 250,000 pages because of one archived mailing list comment: GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com [wired.com].
See below for Slashdot's story about RateMyCop.com.
GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com [slashdot.org] (2008-03-12)

 ICANN Moves Against GoDaddy Domain Lockdowns [slashdot.org] (2008-04-08)

 GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers [slashdot.org] (2008-06-29)

 Those are just the stories until July of 2008.
GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of extremely negative stories.
In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable.
Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy.
He is pro-violence: Close Gitmo?
No way!!
[archive.org]

 He uses women's bodies to advertise: Bob Parson's Video Blog [bobparsons.tv].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265130900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Yes and no. It's like having an apartment. The landlord might own it. But it's still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it."</i> <p>
Interesting...maybe it varies from state to state, but pretty much every lease I've ever signed specifically states the landlord can enter your premise pretty much any time they wish for whatever reason....without notice.</p><p>
You might wanna check your lease..or local state regulations, this certainly isn't a national thing that you stated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes and no .
It 's like having an apartment .
The landlord might own it .
But it 's still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it .
" Interesting...maybe it varies from state to state , but pretty much every lease I 've ever signed specifically states the landlord can enter your premise pretty much any time they wish for whatever reason....without notice .
You might wan na check your lease..or local state regulations , this certainly is n't a national thing that you stated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes and no.
It's like having an apartment.
The landlord might own it.
But it's still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it.
" 
Interesting...maybe it varies from state to state, but pretty much every lease I've ever signed specifically states the landlord can enter your premise pretty much any time they wish for whatever reason....without notice.
You might wanna check your lease..or local state regulations, this certainly isn't a national thing that you stated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267260</id>
	<title>Re:I always wondered what use GoDaddy is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked they were the lowest priced registrar.  I agree their other services are not competitively priced, but I don't use them for anything but domain registration.</p><p>Should I be using a different registrar for cheap domain registration?  Who is cheaper?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked they were the lowest priced registrar .
I agree their other services are not competitively priced , but I do n't use them for anything but domain registration.Should I be using a different registrar for cheap domain registration ?
Who is cheaper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked they were the lowest priced registrar.
I agree their other services are not competitively priced, but I don't use them for anything but domain registration.Should I be using a different registrar for cheap domain registration?
Who is cheaper?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267402</id>
	<title>Re:Feature, not a bug.</title>
	<author>RoFLKOPTr</author>
	<datestamp>1265120940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When my trivia game was hosted at EV1Servers (now part of The Planet company) I kept my root password on file with them at all times, and quite a few times support logged in and helped me with a problem, like telling me the reason my webserver went down was that the Warnings file in Apache had hit the Linux system limit.</p><p>This isn't GoDaddy the domain registrar looking for your passwords, this is GoDaddy the hosting provider wanting to log in to a customer's VPS that's running on their hardware, and most likely is calming down a paranoid admin if he's yelling at Slashdot about a "security breach" when support wanted to log in.</p><p>Nothing to see here... move along.</p></div><p>That would make sense if this was a dedicated server, but this is a VPS. With the two different VM systems I've administered VPSes with (OpenVZ and Xen), you're able to log into any virtual machine as root from the hardware node without a password, negating the need for any of the user's passwords. With OpenVZ it's just `vzctl enter [vpsid]`. There is no reason GoDaddy should be asking for passwords, let alone be automatically probing the VPSes to make sure the passwords on file are correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When my trivia game was hosted at EV1Servers ( now part of The Planet company ) I kept my root password on file with them at all times , and quite a few times support logged in and helped me with a problem , like telling me the reason my webserver went down was that the Warnings file in Apache had hit the Linux system limit.This is n't GoDaddy the domain registrar looking for your passwords , this is GoDaddy the hosting provider wanting to log in to a customer 's VPS that 's running on their hardware , and most likely is calming down a paranoid admin if he 's yelling at Slashdot about a " security breach " when support wanted to log in.Nothing to see here... move along.That would make sense if this was a dedicated server , but this is a VPS .
With the two different VM systems I 've administered VPSes with ( OpenVZ and Xen ) , you 're able to log into any virtual machine as root from the hardware node without a password , negating the need for any of the user 's passwords .
With OpenVZ it 's just ` vzctl enter [ vpsid ] ` .
There is no reason GoDaddy should be asking for passwords , let alone be automatically probing the VPSes to make sure the passwords on file are correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my trivia game was hosted at EV1Servers (now part of The Planet company) I kept my root password on file with them at all times, and quite a few times support logged in and helped me with a problem, like telling me the reason my webserver went down was that the Warnings file in Apache had hit the Linux system limit.This isn't GoDaddy the domain registrar looking for your passwords, this is GoDaddy the hosting provider wanting to log in to a customer's VPS that's running on their hardware, and most likely is calming down a paranoid admin if he's yelling at Slashdot about a "security breach" when support wanted to log in.Nothing to see here... move along.That would make sense if this was a dedicated server, but this is a VPS.
With the two different VM systems I've administered VPSes with (OpenVZ and Xen), you're able to log into any virtual machine as root from the hardware node without a password, negating the need for any of the user's passwords.
With OpenVZ it's just `vzctl enter [vpsid]`.
There is no reason GoDaddy should be asking for passwords, let alone be automatically probing the VPSes to make sure the passwords on file are correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268124</id>
	<title>Pfft.</title>
	<author>drunkennewfiemidget</author>
	<datestamp>1265127480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GoDaddy: We spend all our money on shitty Superbowl commercials, and our customers get screwed.</p><p>GoDaddy is a joke.  Why they still have any customers is beyond me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GoDaddy : We spend all our money on shitty Superbowl commercials , and our customers get screwed.GoDaddy is a joke .
Why they still have any customers is beyond me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GoDaddy: We spend all our money on shitty Superbowl commercials, and our customers get screwed.GoDaddy is a joke.
Why they still have any customers is beyond me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267470</id>
	<title>Re:Christian morality</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1265121540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"*The distorted Protestant American version of the faith."</p><p>Religions should be judged by practice, not theory.</p><p>Besides the obvious fact they are fantastic nonsense, the superstitions of the desert are only useful for facilitating oppression and violence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" * The distorted Protestant American version of the faith .
" Religions should be judged by practice , not theory.Besides the obvious fact they are fantastic nonsense , the superstitions of the desert are only useful for facilitating oppression and violence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"*The distorted Protestant American version of the faith.
"Religions should be judged by practice, not theory.Besides the obvious fact they are fantastic nonsense, the superstitions of the desert are only useful for facilitating oppression and violence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266912</id>
	<title>OK - here it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DrKn0ck3rs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DrKn0ck3rs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DrKn0ck3rs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267756</id>
	<title>Re:Another story, partly about GoDaddy. Chilling.</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1265124300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like business as usual to me. I've written about this on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. before; I've had personal dealings with people associated with GoDaddy and a few of their own employees. Jay Westerdahl (google the jerk) runs (ran?) a company that was very tight with GoDaddy. I never got a very warm feeling from the man and heard interesting thing from his associates about the people who run GoDaddy. All I can do is makes accusations; but if you ever find yourself looking for work or isp partnerships in Seattle don't do them with GoDaddy or Name Intelligence. Not even sure NI is still in business. What I can say about Westerdahl is he started domaintools.com in his garage or something and hit it big with a website giving its subscribers access to tools commonly available on any unix system. Can't argue with success, but then to work the kid, he makes you feel every inch of his economic superiority over you. Of course, if your a possible business partner, he will ask you if he can s*** your d***. And Ray King (aboutus.com); idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like business as usual to me .
I 've written about this on / .
before ; I 've had personal dealings with people associated with GoDaddy and a few of their own employees .
Jay Westerdahl ( google the jerk ) runs ( ran ?
) a company that was very tight with GoDaddy .
I never got a very warm feeling from the man and heard interesting thing from his associates about the people who run GoDaddy .
All I can do is makes accusations ; but if you ever find yourself looking for work or isp partnerships in Seattle do n't do them with GoDaddy or Name Intelligence .
Not even sure NI is still in business .
What I can say about Westerdahl is he started domaintools.com in his garage or something and hit it big with a website giving its subscribers access to tools commonly available on any unix system .
Ca n't argue with success , but then to work the kid , he makes you feel every inch of his economic superiority over you .
Of course , if your a possible business partner , he will ask you if he can s * * * your d * * * .
And Ray King ( aboutus.com ) ; idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like business as usual to me.
I've written about this on /.
before; I've had personal dealings with people associated with GoDaddy and a few of their own employees.
Jay Westerdahl (google the jerk) runs (ran?
) a company that was very tight with GoDaddy.
I never got a very warm feeling from the man and heard interesting thing from his associates about the people who run GoDaddy.
All I can do is makes accusations; but if you ever find yourself looking for work or isp partnerships in Seattle don't do them with GoDaddy or Name Intelligence.
Not even sure NI is still in business.
What I can say about Westerdahl is he started domaintools.com in his garage or something and hit it big with a website giving its subscribers access to tools commonly available on any unix system.
Can't argue with success, but then to work the kid, he makes you feel every inch of his economic superiority over you.
Of course, if your a possible business partner, he will ask you if he can s*** your d***.
And Ray King (aboutus.com); idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31274794</id>
	<title>Re:I'd have thought it was obvious, but...</title>
	<author>Spazholio</author>
	<datestamp>1267124340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy hell, someone else who remembers/is a fan of TKK?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy hell , someone else who remembers/is a fan of TKK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy hell, someone else who remembers/is a fan of TKK?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272518</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1267115880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's not the question. The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>He uses women's bodies to advertise: <a href="http://www.bobparsons.tv/" title="bobparsons.tv" rel="nofollow">Bob Parson's Video Blog</a> [bobparsons.tv].</p></div><p>OMG!!!!!</p><p>Someone is using womens bodies to advertise!!!!!!!</p><p>What, you just arrive on our planet?    Almost everything uses womens bodies to advertise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the question .
The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy .
...He uses women 's bodies to advertise : Bob Parson 's Video Blog [ bobparsons.tv ] .OMG ! ! ! !
! Someone is using womens bodies to advertise ! ! ! ! ! !
! What , you just arrive on our planet ?
Almost everything uses womens bodies to advertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the question.
The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.
...He uses women's bodies to advertise: Bob Parson's Video Blog [bobparsons.tv].OMG!!!!
!Someone is using womens bodies to advertise!!!!!!
!What, you just arrive on our planet?
Almost everything uses womens bodies to advertise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31270988</id>
	<title>Newbie!</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1267106340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why if you are serious about your data you should run your own server on your own rack on your own hosting company connected with your own pipes; Use your own DNSs servers, your own CA and of course your TLD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why if you are serious about your data you should run your own server on your own rack on your own hosting company connected with your own pipes ; Use your own DNSs servers , your own CA and of course your TLD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why if you are serious about your data you should run your own server on your own rack on your own hosting company connected with your own pipes; Use your own DNSs servers, your own CA and of course your TLD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269662</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1267089600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeahhhhhh.... that's not actually the case in any state I've ever lived in.   It's your space.  Your landlord can enter if they have reasonable belief that the property is in immediate danger (leaking pipe, smoke etc...) but otherwise they have to give you notice in advance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeahhhhhh.... that 's not actually the case in any state I 've ever lived in .
It 's your space .
Your landlord can enter if they have reasonable belief that the property is in immediate danger ( leaking pipe , smoke etc... ) but otherwise they have to give you notice in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeahhhhhh.... that's not actually the case in any state I've ever lived in.
It's your space.
Your landlord can enter if they have reasonable belief that the property is in immediate danger (leaking pipe, smoke etc...) but otherwise they have to give you notice in advance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269540</id>
	<title>Horrible company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267130820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GoDaddy is absolutely the worst Internet company I have ever dealt with. Before I was through with them they "fined" me $199 for alleged spamming (posting some links in a chat room of all things), they threatened to hold all of my domains hostage until I paid. I highly recommend anyone with GoDaddy leave now, before the same happens to you.</p><p>http://nodaddy.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GoDaddy is absolutely the worst Internet company I have ever dealt with .
Before I was through with them they " fined " me $ 199 for alleged spamming ( posting some links in a chat room of all things ) , they threatened to hold all of my domains hostage until I paid .
I highly recommend anyone with GoDaddy leave now , before the same happens to you.http : //nodaddy.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GoDaddy is absolutely the worst Internet company I have ever dealt with.
Before I was through with them they "fined" me $199 for alleged spamming (posting some links in a chat room of all things), they threatened to hold all of my domains hostage until I paid.
I highly recommend anyone with GoDaddy leave now, before the same happens to you.http://nodaddy.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267668</id>
	<title>Re:Feature, not a bug.</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1265123460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just about to write the same thing. This was something that was already brought up weeks ago in an Ask Slashdot. People who who don't have much exposure to the web hosting business (and that includes most Slashdotters) don't understand that web hosting falls into two major categories:</p><p>1) Unmanaged</p><p>2) Managed</p><p>Unmanaged hosting means you have full control over all of the software on your machine. (And by "machine" I mean both a real machine and a VPS or cloud node.) Nobody touches your configuration in the slightest once control has been handed over to you. If something goes wrong, including hardware failure, it's the customer's responsibility to notice it and either fix it or get it fixed. Any technical support beyond typical datacenter stuff usually incurs an hourly fee. Unmanaged hosting is ideal for people who want to admin their setup 100\% on their own.</p><p>Managed hosting means the web hosting provider monitors the machine which can include external probes (checking for a response on various TCP ports) and internal metrics like system load and disk utilization. When a red flag pops up, a technician logs into the machine and tries to fix whatever is happening. You can call them up with all manner of ridiculous requests ("install WordPress for me and apply this theme") and they have to do it because, well, that's what the customers expect with a managed hosting account. Managed hosting is awesome for people who want a web server but don't have the expertise or will to actually configure and maintain it.</p><p>What the submitter ran into is that he <i>though</i> he had unmanaged hosting but actually has managed hosting. I don't completely blame him, because a lot of hosting providers don't explicitly state which style they provide. Sometimes it's even hard to tell after you've purchased the product. But its something you have to figure out or else you're going to be deeply dissatisfied with the company's technical support, as the submitter was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just about to write the same thing .
This was something that was already brought up weeks ago in an Ask Slashdot .
People who who do n't have much exposure to the web hosting business ( and that includes most Slashdotters ) do n't understand that web hosting falls into two major categories : 1 ) Unmanaged2 ) ManagedUnmanaged hosting means you have full control over all of the software on your machine .
( And by " machine " I mean both a real machine and a VPS or cloud node .
) Nobody touches your configuration in the slightest once control has been handed over to you .
If something goes wrong , including hardware failure , it 's the customer 's responsibility to notice it and either fix it or get it fixed .
Any technical support beyond typical datacenter stuff usually incurs an hourly fee .
Unmanaged hosting is ideal for people who want to admin their setup 100 \ % on their own.Managed hosting means the web hosting provider monitors the machine which can include external probes ( checking for a response on various TCP ports ) and internal metrics like system load and disk utilization .
When a red flag pops up , a technician logs into the machine and tries to fix whatever is happening .
You can call them up with all manner of ridiculous requests ( " install WordPress for me and apply this theme " ) and they have to do it because , well , that 's what the customers expect with a managed hosting account .
Managed hosting is awesome for people who want a web server but do n't have the expertise or will to actually configure and maintain it.What the submitter ran into is that he though he had unmanaged hosting but actually has managed hosting .
I do n't completely blame him , because a lot of hosting providers do n't explicitly state which style they provide .
Sometimes it 's even hard to tell after you 've purchased the product .
But its something you have to figure out or else you 're going to be deeply dissatisfied with the company 's technical support , as the submitter was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just about to write the same thing.
This was something that was already brought up weeks ago in an Ask Slashdot.
People who who don't have much exposure to the web hosting business (and that includes most Slashdotters) don't understand that web hosting falls into two major categories:1) Unmanaged2) ManagedUnmanaged hosting means you have full control over all of the software on your machine.
(And by "machine" I mean both a real machine and a VPS or cloud node.
) Nobody touches your configuration in the slightest once control has been handed over to you.
If something goes wrong, including hardware failure, it's the customer's responsibility to notice it and either fix it or get it fixed.
Any technical support beyond typical datacenter stuff usually incurs an hourly fee.
Unmanaged hosting is ideal for people who want to admin their setup 100\% on their own.Managed hosting means the web hosting provider monitors the machine which can include external probes (checking for a response on various TCP ports) and internal metrics like system load and disk utilization.
When a red flag pops up, a technician logs into the machine and tries to fix whatever is happening.
You can call them up with all manner of ridiculous requests ("install WordPress for me and apply this theme") and they have to do it because, well, that's what the customers expect with a managed hosting account.
Managed hosting is awesome for people who want a web server but don't have the expertise or will to actually configure and maintain it.What the submitter ran into is that he though he had unmanaged hosting but actually has managed hosting.
I don't completely blame him, because a lot of hosting providers don't explicitly state which style they provide.
Sometimes it's even hard to tell after you've purchased the product.
But its something you have to figure out or else you're going to be deeply dissatisfied with the company's technical support, as the submitter was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265121360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and no. It&rsquo;s like having an apartment. The landlord might own it. But it&rsquo;s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it. It&rsquo;s the same thing as breaking it.</p><p>The question of trust was not the point. The point is, that the landlord is telling you, to give you a copy of keys of the apartment, or he&rsquo;d throw you out.<br>In Germany, he would get dragged to court, and lose big time, when trying this on anyone.</p><p>The same should be true for GoDaddy. Everything else would be laws not keeping up with progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
It    s like having an apartment .
The landlord might own it .
But it    s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it .
It    s the same thing as breaking it.The question of trust was not the point .
The point is , that the landlord is telling you , to give you a copy of keys of the apartment , or he    d throw you out.In Germany , he would get dragged to court , and lose big time , when trying this on anyone.The same should be true for GoDaddy .
Everything else would be laws not keeping up with progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
It’s like having an apartment.
The landlord might own it.
But it’s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it.
It’s the same thing as breaking it.The question of trust was not the point.
The point is, that the landlord is telling you, to give you a copy of keys of the apartment, or he’d throw you out.In Germany, he would get dragged to court, and lose big time, when trying this on anyone.The same should be true for GoDaddy.
Everything else would be laws not keeping up with progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31273982</id>
	<title>They want your collection</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1267121880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We have been collecting some of the tools/scripts used on web attacks for our research.</p></div><p>You publicly stated you had malware. That either got misinterpreted along the line as being infected by or hosting malware (thus the threat of disconnection), or someone inside GodAddy was using it as an excuse to get a copy of your collection of malware, maybe to protect themselves from it or learn to develop more under cover of being proactive on security matters.</p><p>Feigned stupidity can be a cover for actual malice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have been collecting some of the tools/scripts used on web attacks for our research.You publicly stated you had malware .
That either got misinterpreted along the line as being infected by or hosting malware ( thus the threat of disconnection ) , or someone inside GodAddy was using it as an excuse to get a copy of your collection of malware , maybe to protect themselves from it or learn to develop more under cover of being proactive on security matters.Feigned stupidity can be a cover for actual malice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have been collecting some of the tools/scripts used on web attacks for our research.You publicly stated you had malware.
That either got misinterpreted along the line as being infected by or hosting malware (thus the threat of disconnection), or someone inside GodAddy was using it as an excuse to get a copy of your collection of malware, maybe to protect themselves from it or learn to develop more under cover of being proactive on security matters.Feigned stupidity can be a cover for actual malice.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268852</id>
	<title>true story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>GoDaddy called me on my cell to sell me some unnecessary bullshit, as is their business model. Well it was a woman who called me. So after I refused their bullshit offering she asked if I had any more questions.<br> <br>
"Yeah, how do you feel about working for someone that objectifies women in their advertising?"<br> <br>
Silence, then pissiness ensued. Whatever, She knows I am right.<br> <br>
Don't call my cell and pitch me shit that's a waste of my time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>GoDaddy called me on my cell to sell me some unnecessary bullshit , as is their business model .
Well it was a woman who called me .
So after I refused their bullshit offering she asked if I had any more questions .
" Yeah , how do you feel about working for someone that objectifies women in their advertising ?
" Silence , then pissiness ensued .
Whatever , She knows I am right .
Do n't call my cell and pitch me shit that 's a waste of my time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GoDaddy called me on my cell to sell me some unnecessary bullshit, as is their business model.
Well it was a woman who called me.
So after I refused their bullshit offering she asked if I had any more questions.
"Yeah, how do you feel about working for someone that objectifies women in their advertising?
" 
Silence, then pissiness ensued.
Whatever, She knows I am right.
Don't call my cell and pitch me shit that's a waste of my time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267148</id>
	<title>Re:Feature, not a bug.</title>
	<author>batrick</author>
	<datestamp>1265118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A VPS is rented space on hardware in the same way you rent an apartment. You don't own the hardware, but that doesn't mean the host can break into your box whenever he wants. Maybe the contract asserts they have that right (you would be an idiot to contract with them).

Use Linode (arguably the best VPS provider in the industry): <a href="http://linode.com/" title="linode.com" rel="nofollow">http://linode.com/</a> [linode.com]

(I am not affiliated with Linode.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>A VPS is rented space on hardware in the same way you rent an apartment .
You do n't own the hardware , but that does n't mean the host can break into your box whenever he wants .
Maybe the contract asserts they have that right ( you would be an idiot to contract with them ) .
Use Linode ( arguably the best VPS provider in the industry ) : http : //linode.com/ [ linode.com ] ( I am not affiliated with Linode .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A VPS is rented space on hardware in the same way you rent an apartment.
You don't own the hardware, but that doesn't mean the host can break into your box whenever he wants.
Maybe the contract asserts they have that right (you would be an idiot to contract with them).
Use Linode (arguably the best VPS provider in the industry): http://linode.com/ [linode.com]

(I am not affiliated with Linode.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267222</id>
	<title>Re:So who's your daddy? OoooOoooh YeeaaaH!</title>
	<author>X0563511</author>
	<datestamp>1265119260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I much prefer the moniker "NoDaddy"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I much prefer the moniker " NoDaddy "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I much prefer the moniker "NoDaddy"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268146</id>
	<title>well..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if this proves anything, but I just went to GoDaddy and searched for the domain "godaddysucksdonkeycock.com" and was told to "please select a different domain name to search on". What does that mean, exactly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if this proves anything , but I just went to GoDaddy and searched for the domain " godaddysucksdonkeycock.com " and was told to " please select a different domain name to search on " .
What does that mean , exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if this proves anything, but I just went to GoDaddy and searched for the domain "godaddysucksdonkeycock.com" and was told to "please select a different domain name to search on".
What does that mean, exactly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267236</id>
	<title>Physical Access</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have physical access which means they don't need the root password. The fact that they store the password just shows plain lack of skill or laziness to implement a better access method by their admins. Store the pass where they could potentially be accessed is the issue here. What happens if the database is hacked and the passwords stolen without their knowledge. Insider hacking is also an major issue. Having the root password could allow an attacker to log in and erase all traces easily. Of course it's doable with physical access too but in that case, it's a little more intrusive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have physical access which means they do n't need the root password .
The fact that they store the password just shows plain lack of skill or laziness to implement a better access method by their admins .
Store the pass where they could potentially be accessed is the issue here .
What happens if the database is hacked and the passwords stolen without their knowledge .
Insider hacking is also an major issue .
Having the root password could allow an attacker to log in and erase all traces easily .
Of course it 's doable with physical access too but in that case , it 's a little more intrusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have physical access which means they don't need the root password.
The fact that they store the password just shows plain lack of skill or laziness to implement a better access method by their admins.
Store the pass where they could potentially be accessed is the issue here.
What happens if the database is hacked and the passwords stolen without their knowledge.
Insider hacking is also an major issue.
Having the root password could allow an attacker to log in and erase all traces easily.
Of course it's doable with physical access too but in that case, it's a little more intrusive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31285866</id>
	<title>Bob Parsons just bought Cher's house</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1267204080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great.  This from the guy who just spent several million dollars buying Cher's house in Hawaii.  The guy has a private jet.  How the hell does a web hosting company pull that off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
This from the guy who just spent several million dollars buying Cher 's house in Hawaii .
The guy has a private jet .
How the hell does a web hosting company pull that off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
This from the guy who just spent several million dollars buying Cher's house in Hawaii.
The guy has a private jet.
How the hell does a web hosting company pull that off?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267518</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265122020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's not the question. The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</p><p>[Huge list of news, showing GoDaddy&rsquo;s questionable trustworthiness]</p></div><p>I think you just answered that question.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Also, (I know that looks are not really relevant) why does he look like a cross of Hannibal Lecter and a child molester? (I swear, looks can&rsquo;t be that irrelevant, considering [statistically significantly] how often they fit.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the question .
The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy .
[ Huge list of news , showing GoDaddy    s questionable trustworthiness ] I think you just answered that question .
; ) Also , ( I know that looks are not really relevant ) why does he look like a cross of Hannibal Lecter and a child molester ?
( I swear , looks can    t be that irrelevant , considering [ statistically significantly ] how often they fit .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the question.
The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.
[Huge list of news, showing GoDaddy’s questionable trustworthiness]I think you just answered that question.
;)Also, (I know that looks are not really relevant) why does he look like a cross of Hannibal Lecter and a child molester?
(I swear, looks can’t be that irrelevant, considering [statistically significantly] how often they fit.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268294</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like how you added that "Dumps Linux for MS" link there as if it actually mattered. Another dumb freetard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how you added that " Dumps Linux for MS " link there as if it actually mattered .
Another dumb freetard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how you added that "Dumps Linux for MS" link there as if it actually mattered.
Another dumb freetard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267352</id>
	<title>Actually a good idea</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1265120400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heck, if their sysadmins are definitely like the chicks in the commercials, I'd <i>definitely</i> give them my "root".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , if their sysadmins are definitely like the chicks in the commercials , I 'd definitely give them my " root " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, if their sysadmins are definitely like the chicks in the commercials, I'd definitely give them my "root".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31271294</id>
	<title>Siteground</title>
	<author>Moe1975</author>
	<datestamp>1267108800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have had my share of BS from godaddy, and that is why I stopped referring my web dev clients to them. I now send all my clients to siteground. They absolutely rock. Their tech support people are highly competent, quick, and polite . . . they are actual geeks, not fucktard sales dept rejects that have been put through some bs support course for mental defectives, like gocrappy.</p><p>I can't say enough good things about them, sorry if this sounds like an ad, but, they truly rock.</p><p>MOE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had my share of BS from godaddy , and that is why I stopped referring my web dev clients to them .
I now send all my clients to siteground .
They absolutely rock .
Their tech support people are highly competent , quick , and polite .
. .
they are actual geeks , not fucktard sales dept rejects that have been put through some bs support course for mental defectives , like gocrappy.I ca n't say enough good things about them , sorry if this sounds like an ad , but , they truly rock.MOE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had my share of BS from godaddy, and that is why I stopped referring my web dev clients to them.
I now send all my clients to siteground.
They absolutely rock.
Their tech support people are highly competent, quick, and polite .
. .
they are actual geeks, not fucktard sales dept rejects that have been put through some bs support course for mental defectives, like gocrappy.I can't say enough good things about them, sorry if this sounds like an ad, but, they truly rock.MOE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266968</id>
	<title>No Surprises Here</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1265117340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not surprising at all.</p><p>I had a domain with Godaddy a few years ago when they breached ICANN's rules by threatening to confiscate my domain unless I paid them $200, because I had supposedly breached their TOS.</p><p>GoDaddy is not to be trusted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not surprising at all.I had a domain with Godaddy a few years ago when they breached ICANN 's rules by threatening to confiscate my domain unless I paid them $ 200 , because I had supposedly breached their TOS.GoDaddy is not to be trusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not surprising at all.I had a domain with Godaddy a few years ago when they breached ICANN's rules by threatening to confiscate my domain unless I paid them $200, because I had supposedly breached their TOS.GoDaddy is not to be trusted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267652</id>
	<title>Re:I'd have thought it was obvious, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. If they were serious they'd surely advertise with hard-core porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
If they were serious they 'd surely advertise with hard-core porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
If they were serious they'd surely advertise with hard-core porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268224</id>
	<title>An AC's Battle Cry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GoDaddy can have my root password when they pry it out of my warm, fapping hand!!</p><p>Ewww.  I think I just grossed myself out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GoDaddy can have my root password when they pry it out of my warm , fapping hand ! ! Ewww .
I think I just grossed myself out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GoDaddy can have my root password when they pry it out of my warm, fapping hand!!Ewww.
I think I just grossed myself out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266958</id>
	<title>So who's your daddy? OoooOoooh YeeaaaH!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What can you expect with that name?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What can you expect with that name ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can you expect with that name?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994</id>
	<title>I'd have thought it was obvious, but...</title>
	<author>straponego</author>
	<datestamp>1265117460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pro tip: never trust your domain or your business to a company who got its name from a Thrill Kill Kult song and advertises its services with soft-core porn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pro tip : never trust your domain or your business to a company who got its name from a Thrill Kill Kult song and advertises its services with soft-core porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pro tip: never trust your domain or your business to a company who got its name from a Thrill Kill Kult song and advertises its services with soft-core porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268780</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know in CA (pretty sure NY too) it either has to be an emergency (house was on fire, bathroom was flooding) or they have to give you at least 24 hours notice.  By leasing the apartment the landlord releases their right to access to the lessee.  I'm not sure what constitutes a valid request for access and I'm sure that varies from place to place, but no place I know of allows free access to a private dwelling just because you own the building.  So my landlord walks in on my wife in the shower and that's ok because he owns the building?  If that's the case where you live please let me know so I can cross that off my list of places to live...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know in CA ( pretty sure NY too ) it either has to be an emergency ( house was on fire , bathroom was flooding ) or they have to give you at least 24 hours notice .
By leasing the apartment the landlord releases their right to access to the lessee .
I 'm not sure what constitutes a valid request for access and I 'm sure that varies from place to place , but no place I know of allows free access to a private dwelling just because you own the building .
So my landlord walks in on my wife in the shower and that 's ok because he owns the building ?
If that 's the case where you live please let me know so I can cross that off my list of places to live.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know in CA (pretty sure NY too) it either has to be an emergency (house was on fire, bathroom was flooding) or they have to give you at least 24 hours notice.
By leasing the apartment the landlord releases their right to access to the lessee.
I'm not sure what constitutes a valid request for access and I'm sure that varies from place to place, but no place I know of allows free access to a private dwelling just because you own the building.
So my landlord walks in on my wife in the shower and that's ok because he owns the building?
If that's the case where you live please let me know so I can cross that off my list of places to live...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267832</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1265124900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitan Obvious answer: there is nothing the VM can do to prevent someone with physical access from having complete control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitan Obvious answer : there is nothing the VM can do to prevent someone with physical access from having complete control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitan Obvious answer: there is nothing the VM can do to prevent someone with physical access from having complete control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31282838</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>dcam</author>
	<datestamp>1267179420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How robust are the various common server operating systems against an attacker breaching the system by either reading or manipulating the VM's state?</i></p><p>They aren't. The old rule of physical access applies to VMs. You could mitigate this to some extent by moving to a encrypted file system (if they allow this).</p><p>It ain't hard to drag a vm to another machine and explore at your leasure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How robust are the various common server operating systems against an attacker breaching the system by either reading or manipulating the VM 's state ? They are n't .
The old rule of physical access applies to VMs .
You could mitigate this to some extent by moving to a encrypted file system ( if they allow this ) .It ai n't hard to drag a vm to another machine and explore at your leasure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How robust are the various common server operating systems against an attacker breaching the system by either reading or manipulating the VM's state?They aren't.
The old rule of physical access applies to VMs.
You could mitigate this to some extent by moving to a encrypted file system (if they allow this).It ain't hard to drag a vm to another machine and explore at your leasure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267622</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, maybe you have had a bad experience with them? Seemed ready to go for that one.
I love the "pro-violence" and advertising on women's  bodies, for shame<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

Personally I have never used them and will not ever because of folks I know, who had issues. Not trust related though.
Sorry carry on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , maybe you have had a bad experience with them ?
Seemed ready to go for that one .
I love the " pro-violence " and advertising on women 's bodies , for shame : ) Personally I have never used them and will not ever because of folks I know , who had issues .
Not trust related though .
Sorry carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, maybe you have had a bad experience with them?
Seemed ready to go for that one.
I love the "pro-violence" and advertising on women's  bodies, for shame :)

Personally I have never used them and will not ever because of folks I know, who had issues.
Not trust related though.
Sorry carry on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268748</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You already trust them 100\% if you let them have access to your box</p> </div><p>That's what she said!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You already trust them 100 \ % if you let them have access to your box That 's what she said !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You already trust them 100\% if you let them have access to your box That's what she said!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267412</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of extremely negative stories. In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable. </i>"</p><p>This is quite an understatement.  I do occasional web development on the side, and I recently had my first client in a while.  I told her to go ahead and sign up for the domain with GoDaddy, but she said she couldn't figure out what to do.  So I helped her out in person and I couldn't *believe* the amount of crap they try to push on you. Pages full of options and "upgrades" and packages on every step<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... even after you finish your purchase!  It's a tremendously confusing experience for someone who doesn't know how to filter out the signal from the noise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" GoDaddy 's reputation is not just one of extremely negative stories .
In my opinion , GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they do n't need and presenting them as valuable .
" This is quite an understatement .
I do occasional web development on the side , and I recently had my first client in a while .
I told her to go ahead and sign up for the domain with GoDaddy , but she said she could n't figure out what to do .
So I helped her out in person and I could n't * believe * the amount of crap they try to push on you .
Pages full of options and " upgrades " and packages on every step ... even after you finish your purchase !
It 's a tremendously confusing experience for someone who does n't know how to filter out the signal from the noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of extremely negative stories.
In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable.
"This is quite an understatement.
I do occasional web development on the side, and I recently had my first client in a while.
I told her to go ahead and sign up for the domain with GoDaddy, but she said she couldn't figure out what to do.
So I helped her out in person and I couldn't *believe* the amount of crap they try to push on you.
Pages full of options and "upgrades" and packages on every step ... even after you finish your purchase!
It's a tremendously confusing experience for someone who doesn't know how to filter out the signal from the noise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269646</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267089240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was somewhat convinced by your argument until you randomly brought politics into it, and now I don't respect it anymore. The owner's opinion on politics and the fact they disagree with yours is no argument against the trustworthiness of his company, but the fact that you think it is is a sign that you may have a personal bias against him, and therefore it does diminish your credibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was somewhat convinced by your argument until you randomly brought politics into it , and now I do n't respect it anymore .
The owner 's opinion on politics and the fact they disagree with yours is no argument against the trustworthiness of his company , but the fact that you think it is is a sign that you may have a personal bias against him , and therefore it does diminish your credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was somewhat convinced by your argument until you randomly brought politics into it, and now I don't respect it anymore.
The owner's opinion on politics and the fact they disagree with yours is no argument against the trustworthiness of his company, but the fact that you think it is is a sign that you may have a personal bias against him, and therefore it does diminish your credibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267000</id>
	<title>I always wondered what use GoDaddy is</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1265117460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They only seem to market themselves by objectifying women and their services don't seem low priced or high quality.  Frankly I think they are an embarrassment to the tech world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They only seem to market themselves by objectifying women and their services do n't seem low priced or high quality .
Frankly I think they are an embarrassment to the tech world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They only seem to market themselves by objectifying women and their services don't seem low priced or high quality.
Frankly I think they are an embarrassment to the tech world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267888</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1265125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GoDaddy eventually apologized for the last one on it's radio show. Go to <a href="http://www.radiogodaddy.com/" title="radiogodaddy.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.radiogodaddy.com/</a> [radiogodaddy.com] and look for the December radio show on "Virtual Weddings, Flawed Internet Filters &amp; a Candid Discussion About Go Daddy Business Practices".</htmltext>
<tokenext>GoDaddy eventually apologized for the last one on it 's radio show .
Go to http : //www.radiogodaddy.com/ [ radiogodaddy.com ] and look for the December radio show on " Virtual Weddings , Flawed Internet Filters &amp; a Candid Discussion About Go Daddy Business Practices " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GoDaddy eventually apologized for the last one on it's radio show.
Go to http://www.radiogodaddy.com/ [radiogodaddy.com] and look for the December radio show on "Virtual Weddings, Flawed Internet Filters &amp; a Candid Discussion About Go Daddy Business Practices".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267014</id>
	<title>Re:No Surprises Here</title>
	<author>aflag</author>
	<datestamp>1265117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What registrar do you recommend instead?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What registrar do you recommend instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What registrar do you recommend instead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268110</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>c\_forq</author>
	<datestamp>1265127300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes and no. It&rsquo;s like having an apartment. The landlord might own it. But it&rsquo;s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it. It&rsquo;s the same thing as breaking it.</p></div><p>In many jurisdictions it is often only required to give advanced notice.  I know in my area they only have to give 24 hour notice.  Their purpose for entry can be to display the apartment for a potential renter, for city/state inspections, or for maintenance.  They don't have to ask, they only have to tell you.  Most do ask, but mainly because having a good reputation in a competitive market is valuable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
It    s like having an apartment .
The landlord might own it .
But it    s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it .
It    s the same thing as breaking it.In many jurisdictions it is often only required to give advanced notice .
I know in my area they only have to give 24 hour notice .
Their purpose for entry can be to display the apartment for a potential renter , for city/state inspections , or for maintenance .
They do n't have to ask , they only have to tell you .
Most do ask , but mainly because having a good reputation in a competitive market is valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
It’s like having an apartment.
The landlord might own it.
But it’s still highly illegal for him to go into your apartment without you allowing it.
It’s the same thing as breaking it.In many jurisdictions it is often only required to give advanced notice.
I know in my area they only have to give 24 hour notice.
Their purpose for entry can be to display the apartment for a potential renter, for city/state inspections, or for maintenance.
They don't have to ask, they only have to tell you.
Most do ask, but mainly because having a good reputation in a competitive market is valuable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268816</id>
	<title>Security?</title>
	<author>trapnest</author>
	<datestamp>1265135100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am glad I don't have any services with godaddy, I don't want any of my passwords stored in a easily retrievable manner, much less a company as easy to social as godaddy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad I do n't have any services with godaddy , I do n't want any of my passwords stored in a easily retrievable manner , much less a company as easy to social as godaddy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad I don't have any services with godaddy, I don't want any of my passwords stored in a easily retrievable manner, much less a company as easy to social as godaddy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267072</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1265117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding is that "VPS" usually implies that you are living in a VM on somebody else's box.<br> <br>

How robust are the various common server operating systems against an attacker breaching the system by either reading or manipulating the VM's state? When your "hard drive" is just a file on somebody else's system, and your RAM is just a block of memory reserved for you by whatever virtualization mechanism is being employed, either could conceivably be read or written without any access to your system through the usual channels(ssh, admin passwords, etc.) If, say, you are using public key authentication, to avoid password attacks entirely, what would stop the VM host from just scribbling their own public key onto the list of approved public keys stored on your filesystem? Or doing something subtler, like scanning your block of RAM to find your SSH daemon, and flipping a few bits to make it interpret your login attempt as valid rather than failed?<br> <br>

Obviously, in theory, you can never win against somebody who controls the hardware(and, with VMs, they don't even need EE skills and an expensive oscilloscope to poke at the hardware, since the "hardware" is actually software). However, theoretical viability and practical doability can be very different animals. In this case, they tried a clumsy password guess, followed by a demand, obviously not uber-hacker material. Has there been any work done, though, on the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of what a VM that doesn't trust its host can do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that " VPS " usually implies that you are living in a VM on somebody else 's box .
How robust are the various common server operating systems against an attacker breaching the system by either reading or manipulating the VM 's state ?
When your " hard drive " is just a file on somebody else 's system , and your RAM is just a block of memory reserved for you by whatever virtualization mechanism is being employed , either could conceivably be read or written without any access to your system through the usual channels ( ssh , admin passwords , etc .
) If , say , you are using public key authentication , to avoid password attacks entirely , what would stop the VM host from just scribbling their own public key onto the list of approved public keys stored on your filesystem ?
Or doing something subtler , like scanning your block of RAM to find your SSH daemon , and flipping a few bits to make it interpret your login attempt as valid rather than failed ?
Obviously , in theory , you can never win against somebody who controls the hardware ( and , with VMs , they do n't even need EE skills and an expensive oscilloscope to poke at the hardware , since the " hardware " is actually software ) .
However , theoretical viability and practical doability can be very different animals .
In this case , they tried a clumsy password guess , followed by a demand , obviously not uber-hacker material .
Has there been any work done , though , on the strengths , weaknesses , and limits of what a VM that does n't trust its host can do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that "VPS" usually implies that you are living in a VM on somebody else's box.
How robust are the various common server operating systems against an attacker breaching the system by either reading or manipulating the VM's state?
When your "hard drive" is just a file on somebody else's system, and your RAM is just a block of memory reserved for you by whatever virtualization mechanism is being employed, either could conceivably be read or written without any access to your system through the usual channels(ssh, admin passwords, etc.
) If, say, you are using public key authentication, to avoid password attacks entirely, what would stop the VM host from just scribbling their own public key onto the list of approved public keys stored on your filesystem?
Or doing something subtler, like scanning your block of RAM to find your SSH daemon, and flipping a few bits to make it interpret your login attempt as valid rather than failed?
Obviously, in theory, you can never win against somebody who controls the hardware(and, with VMs, they don't even need EE skills and an expensive oscilloscope to poke at the hardware, since the "hardware" is actually software).
However, theoretical viability and practical doability can be very different animals.
In this case, they tried a clumsy password guess, followed by a demand, obviously not uber-hacker material.
Has there been any work done, though, on the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of what a VM that doesn't trust its host can do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267108</id>
	<title>Re:I always wondered what use GoDaddy is</title>
	<author>skuzzlebutt</author>
	<datestamp>1265118240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what about the boobies^H^H^H superbowl commerci^H^H^H quality service they provide?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what about the boobies ^ H ^ H ^ H superbowl commerci ^ H ^ H ^ H quality service they provide ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what about the boobies^H^H^H superbowl commerci^H^H^H quality service they provide?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</id>
	<title>They physically own the box</title>
	<author>SpazmodeusG</author>
	<datestamp>1265117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You already trust them 100\% if you let them have access to your box
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/That sounded wrong somehow</htmltext>
<tokenext>You already trust them 100 \ % if you let them have access to your box /That sounded wrong somehow</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You already trust them 100\% if you let them have access to your box
  /That sounded wrong somehow</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268194</id>
	<title>Re:I'd have thought it was obvious, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pro tip: never trust your domain or your business to a company who got its name from a Thrill Kill Kult song and advertises its services with soft-core porn.</p></div><p>Pro tip: never trust someone who thinks the source of a company's name or their advertising has <i>anything</i> to do with the level of service they offer.<br>Especially when that someone is ranting about "soft-core porn" while posting under the name of "Strap-On &amp; Go", an obvious reference to Dildos &amp; Watersports.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pro tip : never trust your domain or your business to a company who got its name from a Thrill Kill Kult song and advertises its services with soft-core porn.Pro tip : never trust someone who thinks the source of a company 's name or their advertising has anything to do with the level of service they offer.Especially when that someone is ranting about " soft-core porn " while posting under the name of " Strap-On &amp; Go " , an obvious reference to Dildos &amp; Watersports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pro tip: never trust your domain or your business to a company who got its name from a Thrill Kill Kult song and advertises its services with soft-core porn.Pro tip: never trust someone who thinks the source of a company's name or their advertising has anything to do with the level of service they offer.Especially when that someone is ranting about "soft-core porn" while posting under the name of "Strap-On &amp; Go", an obvious reference to Dildos &amp; Watersports.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267098</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1265118120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's simple: All your passwords are belong to us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple : All your passwords are belong to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple: All your passwords are belong to us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272546</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1267116000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He uses women's bodies to advertise</p></div><p> And this is a bad thing? </p><p>Seriously though, if that was a reason to not use his service we'd have to stop drinking, using body products, going on vacation, buying motorcycles, buying magazines, tuning cars, etc.</p><p>The rest of your points seem perfectly valid though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He uses women 's bodies to advertise And this is a bad thing ?
Seriously though , if that was a reason to not use his service we 'd have to stop drinking , using body products , going on vacation , buying motorcycles , buying magazines , tuning cars , etc.The rest of your points seem perfectly valid though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He uses women's bodies to advertise And this is a bad thing?
Seriously though, if that was a reason to not use his service we'd have to stop drinking, using body products, going on vacation, buying motorcycles, buying magazines, tuning cars, etc.The rest of your points seem perfectly valid though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267592</id>
	<title>Re:No Surprises Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a fan of Hover (formerly DomainDirect).  They're the registrar operated by Tucows, not a reseller.  Clean interface (if a touch weird) and absolutely none of the sleazy upselling.  Domain privacy comes with the registration, no fearmongering like GoDaddy throws at you.</p><p>It's a little more, so if you have hundreds of domains, it might make a dent.  Otherwise, it's worth the cost of a mocha at starbucks every year to patronize a business that doesn't come off like used car salesmen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a fan of Hover ( formerly DomainDirect ) .
They 're the registrar operated by Tucows , not a reseller .
Clean interface ( if a touch weird ) and absolutely none of the sleazy upselling .
Domain privacy comes with the registration , no fearmongering like GoDaddy throws at you.It 's a little more , so if you have hundreds of domains , it might make a dent .
Otherwise , it 's worth the cost of a mocha at starbucks every year to patronize a business that does n't come off like used car salesmen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a fan of Hover (formerly DomainDirect).
They're the registrar operated by Tucows, not a reseller.
Clean interface (if a touch weird) and absolutely none of the sleazy upselling.
Domain privacy comes with the registration, no fearmongering like GoDaddy throws at you.It's a little more, so if you have hundreds of domains, it might make a dent.
Otherwise, it's worth the cost of a mocha at starbucks every year to patronize a business that doesn't come off like used car salesmen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267396</id>
	<title>Quality, baby</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1265120880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Say what you will about Godaddy, but they put out quality commercials.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you will about Godaddy , but they put out quality commercials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you will about Godaddy, but they put out quality commercials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268278</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1265129100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Define "Your Box".</p><p>The guy was running "Virtual Private Servers".  In effect, renting a virtual machine on a GoDaddy box.</p><p>That is slightly different than running his own box, because when malware is served or spam sent from that box it is GoDaddy that is on the hook.</p><p>His big mistake was assuming a VPS was HIS.  Its really just a rented room, and just like a landlord can take steps to make sure meth is not brewed in his building, GoDaddy can protect their network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Define " Your Box " .The guy was running " Virtual Private Servers " .
In effect , renting a virtual machine on a GoDaddy box.That is slightly different than running his own box , because when malware is served or spam sent from that box it is GoDaddy that is on the hook.His big mistake was assuming a VPS was HIS .
Its really just a rented room , and just like a landlord can take steps to make sure meth is not brewed in his building , GoDaddy can protect their network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define "Your Box".The guy was running "Virtual Private Servers".
In effect, renting a virtual machine on a GoDaddy box.That is slightly different than running his own box, because when malware is served or spam sent from that box it is GoDaddy that is on the hook.His big mistake was assuming a VPS was HIS.
Its really just a rented room, and just like a landlord can take steps to make sure meth is not brewed in his building, GoDaddy can protect their network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31273414</id>
	<title>Is that the same Bob Parsons who used to own...</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1267119900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parsons Technology, the company that peddled income tax and DIY wills a few years ago?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parsons Technology , the company that peddled income tax and DIY wills a few years ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parsons Technology, the company that peddled income tax and DIY wills a few years ago?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267610</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of extremely negative stories. In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable.<br>Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy. He is pro-violence: Close Gitmo? No way!! [archive.org]<br>He uses women's bodies to advertise: Bob Parson's Video Blog [bobparsons.tv].</p></div><p>You almost had me up until this point.</p><p>1. That's called marketing &amp; sales. Not saying I agree with it, but that claim can be made about just about any company out there.<br>2. The owner's positions on violence, gitmo, and the color of underwear (if any) which he uses are of ZERO importance. If you want to go on some moral crusade because of a companies religious beliefs feel free, but don't bring it into this discussion as it's completely irrelevant.<br>3. See point 1 verbatim. I also notice you aren't having any moral outrage over anybody using Men's bodies to advertise, which also makes you a hypocrite.</p><p>So which competing hosting company are you schilling for?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GoDaddy 's reputation is not just one of extremely negative stories .
In my opinion , GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they do n't need and presenting them as valuable.Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons , the owner of GoDaddy .
He is pro-violence : Close Gitmo ?
No way ! !
[ archive.org ] He uses women 's bodies to advertise : Bob Parson 's Video Blog [ bobparsons.tv ] .You almost had me up until this point.1 .
That 's called marketing &amp; sales .
Not saying I agree with it , but that claim can be made about just about any company out there.2 .
The owner 's positions on violence , gitmo , and the color of underwear ( if any ) which he uses are of ZERO importance .
If you want to go on some moral crusade because of a companies religious beliefs feel free , but do n't bring it into this discussion as it 's completely irrelevant.3 .
See point 1 verbatim .
I also notice you are n't having any moral outrage over anybody using Men 's bodies to advertise , which also makes you a hypocrite.So which competing hosting company are you schilling for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of extremely negative stories.
In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable.Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy.
He is pro-violence: Close Gitmo?
No way!!
[archive.org]He uses women's bodies to advertise: Bob Parson's Video Blog [bobparsons.tv].You almost had me up until this point.1.
That's called marketing &amp; sales.
Not saying I agree with it, but that claim can be made about just about any company out there.2.
The owner's positions on violence, gitmo, and the color of underwear (if any) which he uses are of ZERO importance.
If you want to go on some moral crusade because of a companies religious beliefs feel free, but don't bring it into this discussion as it's completely irrelevant.3.
See point 1 verbatim.
I also notice you aren't having any moral outrage over anybody using Men's bodies to advertise, which also makes you a hypocrite.So which competing hosting company are you schilling for?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31273852</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267121400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the review of GoDaddy's rep. This needed to be said.</p><p>I could never trust an organization that advertises the way they do. It's too sleazey which suggests that they'll do anything to turn a profit; even exploit the privacy of their own customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the review of GoDaddy 's rep. This needed to be said.I could never trust an organization that advertises the way they do .
It 's too sleazey which suggests that they 'll do anything to turn a profit ; even exploit the privacy of their own customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the review of GoDaddy's rep. This needed to be said.I could never trust an organization that advertises the way they do.
It's too sleazey which suggests that they'll do anything to turn a profit; even exploit the privacy of their own customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268268</id>
	<title>Re:The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's not the question. The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.

Judge for yourself.

He uses women's bodies to advertise: <a href="http://www.bobparsons.tv/" title="bobparsons.tv" rel="nofollow">Bob Parson's Video Blog</a> [bobparsons.tv].</p></div><p>How is that an issue of trustworthiness as long as he has paid these women for their work? Or do you just not like that kind of thing? Seem like a a big tinfoil hat warning is needed here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the question .
The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy .
Judge for yourself .
He uses women 's bodies to advertise : Bob Parson 's Video Blog [ bobparsons.tv ] .How is that an issue of trustworthiness as long as he has paid these women for their work ?
Or do you just not like that kind of thing ?
Seem like a a big tinfoil hat warning is needed here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the question.
The question is if GoDaddy is trustworthy.
Judge for yourself.
He uses women's bodies to advertise: Bob Parson's Video Blog [bobparsons.tv].How is that an issue of trustworthiness as long as he has paid these women for their work?
Or do you just not like that kind of thing?
Seem like a a big tinfoil hat warning is needed here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266928</id>
	<title>Re:OK - here it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where'd you get my password!?!?!?!  And why are you posting it on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.!?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 'd you get my password ! ? ! ? ! ? !
And why are you posting it on /. ! ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where'd you get my password!?!?!?!
And why are you posting it on /.!?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267504</id>
	<title>Imperva FAILS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't they use Imperva for security.  I guess it's a testament of how Imperva is a bad choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they use Imperva for security .
I guess it 's a testament of how Imperva is a bad choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they use Imperva for security.
I guess it's a testament of how Imperva is a bad choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31271768</id>
	<title>Put this service in perspective</title>
	<author>twelveinchbrain</author>
	<datestamp>1267111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A GoDaddy Virtual Dedicated Server is *not* the property of the party who purchases the service, it is the property of GoDaddy. Read the <a href="https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/hosting/virtual-dedicated-server.asp" title="godaddy.com">product literature</a> [godaddy.com] and the <a href="http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/legal\_agreements/show\_doc.asp?pageid=HOSTING\_SA" title="godaddy.com">service agreement</a> [godaddy.com], and you will find that at no point are you granted the right to take sole control of the root account. This would be like insisting on changing the lock on an apartment so that only you have access to it. The strongest promise they make is that you will have administrative access so that you can install whatever you want.</p><p>GoDaddy did nothing wrong, but it's good that they put the best possible face on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A GoDaddy Virtual Dedicated Server is * not * the property of the party who purchases the service , it is the property of GoDaddy .
Read the product literature [ godaddy.com ] and the service agreement [ godaddy.com ] , and you will find that at no point are you granted the right to take sole control of the root account .
This would be like insisting on changing the lock on an apartment so that only you have access to it .
The strongest promise they make is that you will have administrative access so that you can install whatever you want.GoDaddy did nothing wrong , but it 's good that they put the best possible face on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A GoDaddy Virtual Dedicated Server is *not* the property of the party who purchases the service, it is the property of GoDaddy.
Read the product literature [godaddy.com] and the service agreement [godaddy.com], and you will find that at no point are you granted the right to take sole control of the root account.
This would be like insisting on changing the lock on an apartment so that only you have access to it.
The strongest promise they make is that you will have administrative access so that you can install whatever you want.GoDaddy did nothing wrong, but it's good that they put the best possible face on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272476</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1267115700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, he did say "in Germany" so it's just possible that he doesn't live in the US...</p><p>On the other hand, there are similar legal provisions here in the UK - landlords have to give notice if they want to enter the property while you're renting it, they can't just turn up and demand to be let in (or let themselves in).</p><p>(Of course there are also provisions for dealing with unreasonable tenants - you can't keep a landlord out forever, you do have to let them in at some point when they ask)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , he did say " in Germany " so it 's just possible that he does n't live in the US...On the other hand , there are similar legal provisions here in the UK - landlords have to give notice if they want to enter the property while you 're renting it , they ca n't just turn up and demand to be let in ( or let themselves in ) .
( Of course there are also provisions for dealing with unreasonable tenants - you ca n't keep a landlord out forever , you do have to let them in at some point when they ask )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, he did say "in Germany" so it's just possible that he doesn't live in the US...On the other hand, there are similar legal provisions here in the UK - landlords have to give notice if they want to enter the property while you're renting it, they can't just turn up and demand to be let in (or let themselves in).
(Of course there are also provisions for dealing with unreasonable tenants - you can't keep a landlord out forever, you do have to let them in at some point when they ask)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267484</id>
	<title>So? Don't give it to them.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265121720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make a backup of your server, and then tell them that they won&rsquo;t get it.</p><p>If they switch off your server, sue them for extortion, trespassing (in case they entered the server) and damages. [Same rules as with a (business) apartment and a landlord.]</p><p>But I personally already had hosters asking me for the root password. I refused. That was it. They did not do anything. (We still had a contract, after all.) Of course they told me that they wouldn&rsquo;t give me support for the software. But I wouldn&rsquo;t have wanted that anyway, since on the last managed server, they wrecked my database when one of their idiot admins did &ldquo;fix&rdquo; something.</p><p>I don&rsquo;t see the problem. Let them bitch. Tell them to fuck off or you&rsquo;ll sue. Done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make a backup of your server , and then tell them that they won    t get it.If they switch off your server , sue them for extortion , trespassing ( in case they entered the server ) and damages .
[ Same rules as with a ( business ) apartment and a landlord .
] But I personally already had hosters asking me for the root password .
I refused .
That was it .
They did not do anything .
( We still had a contract , after all .
) Of course they told me that they wouldn    t give me support for the software .
But I wouldn    t have wanted that anyway , since on the last managed server , they wrecked my database when one of their idiot admins did    fix    something.I don    t see the problem .
Let them bitch .
Tell them to fuck off or you    ll sue .
Done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make a backup of your server, and then tell them that they won’t get it.If they switch off your server, sue them for extortion, trespassing (in case they entered the server) and damages.
[Same rules as with a (business) apartment and a landlord.
]But I personally already had hosters asking me for the root password.
I refused.
That was it.
They did not do anything.
(We still had a contract, after all.
) Of course they told me that they wouldn’t give me support for the software.
But I wouldn’t have wanted that anyway, since on the last managed server, they wrecked my database when one of their idiot admins did “fix” something.I don’t see the problem.
Let them bitch.
Tell them to fuck off or you’ll sue.
Done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31270484</id>
	<title>Marketing</title>
	<author>mu51c10rd</author>
	<datestamp>1267100760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable. </i></p><p>Congratulations, you just described Marketing's purpose in life...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to confuse non-technical people by offering services they do n't need and presenting them as valuable .
Congratulations , you just described Marketing 's purpose in life.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need and presenting them as valuable.
Congratulations, you just described Marketing's purpose in life...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269556</id>
	<title>Re:Always seperate hosting, dns, and registeration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267131060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Backup DNS means real backup! That means different box on a different network in a different part of the country/world. THere are too many people and hosting providers that setup their DNS on one or two servers that are next to each other. Heck, sometimes people put 2 IPs on one box and then say it is 2 servers!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Backup DNS means real backup !
That means different box on a different network in a different part of the country/world .
THere are too many people and hosting providers that setup their DNS on one or two servers that are next to each other .
Heck , sometimes people put 2 IPs on one box and then say it is 2 servers !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Backup DNS means real backup!
That means different box on a different network in a different part of the country/world.
THere are too many people and hosting providers that setup their DNS on one or two servers that are next to each other.
Heck, sometimes people put 2 IPs on one box and then say it is 2 servers!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267192</id>
	<title>Re:They physically own the box</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1265118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't mind them having my password<br>
<br>
It's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWDU9ZWMoEw" title="youtube.com">SAGAPO</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind them having my password It 's SAGAPO [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mind them having my password

It's SAGAPO [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268010</id>
	<title>Re:Feature, not a bug.</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1265126400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This isn't GoDaddy the domain registrar looking for your passwords, this is GoDaddy the hosting provider wanting to log in to a customer's VPS that's running on their hardware, and most likely is calming down a paranoid admin if he's yelling at Slashdot about a "security breach" when support wanted to log in.</i></p><p>Why would, nay, should they log in when there are no indications your box is infected? Asking them for help is a bit different then them arbitrarily accessing it whenever they feel like it, 'we have a process' or not. Most sane providers would send you something like "Hey, we think there's malware $foo coming from your box $bar because $baz, can you please look into it" rather then straight accessing your data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't GoDaddy the domain registrar looking for your passwords , this is GoDaddy the hosting provider wanting to log in to a customer 's VPS that 's running on their hardware , and most likely is calming down a paranoid admin if he 's yelling at Slashdot about a " security breach " when support wanted to log in.Why would , nay , should they log in when there are no indications your box is infected ?
Asking them for help is a bit different then them arbitrarily accessing it whenever they feel like it , 'we have a process ' or not .
Most sane providers would send you something like " Hey , we think there 's malware $ foo coming from your box $ bar because $ baz , can you please look into it " rather then straight accessing your data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't GoDaddy the domain registrar looking for your passwords, this is GoDaddy the hosting provider wanting to log in to a customer's VPS that's running on their hardware, and most likely is calming down a paranoid admin if he's yelling at Slashdot about a "security breach" when support wanted to log in.Why would, nay, should they log in when there are no indications your box is infected?
Asking them for help is a bit different then them arbitrarily accessing it whenever they feel like it, 'we have a process' or not.
Most sane providers would send you something like "Hey, we think there's malware $foo coming from your box $bar because $baz, can you please look into it" rather then straight accessing your data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267278</id>
	<title>Re:I'd have thought it was obvious, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>advertises its services with soft-core porn.</p></div><p>Their advertising screams "by geeks for geeks" to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>advertises its services with soft-core porn.Their advertising screams " by geeks for geeks " to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>advertises its services with soft-core porn.Their advertising screams "by geeks for geeks" to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31271146</id>
	<title>There are so many good reasons to stay away from G</title>
	<author>flycast</author>
	<datestamp>1267107720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enough said...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enough said.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enough said...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269818</id>
	<title>Alternatives to Godaddy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267091460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly Godaddy are not a company anyone should not need to deal with. I currently have several domains hosted there and wish to move them (including a paid-for email service for one of them).</p><p>What other domain registrars would be recommended? I am after one who I will be able to trust, and I'm willing to pay a bit more for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly Godaddy are not a company anyone should not need to deal with .
I currently have several domains hosted there and wish to move them ( including a paid-for email service for one of them ) .What other domain registrars would be recommended ?
I am after one who I will be able to trust , and I 'm willing to pay a bit more for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly Godaddy are not a company anyone should not need to deal with.
I currently have several domains hosted there and wish to move them (including a paid-for email service for one of them).What other domain registrars would be recommended?
I am after one who I will be able to trust, and I'm willing to pay a bit more for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267036</id>
	<title>M$ pwnage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265117640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't Microsoft own root on all Windows installs? Where's the uproar from the cows over that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't Microsoft own root on all Windows installs ?
Where 's the uproar from the cows over that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't Microsoft own root on all Windows installs?
Where's the uproar from the cows over that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267582</id>
	<title>Virus or Malware on Securi blog link!?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone else noticed that the Securi blog sets off a malware alarm when attempting to access the main site?!?!  I'm currently using Avast!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone else noticed that the Securi blog sets off a malware alarm when attempting to access the main site ? ! ? !
I 'm currently using Avast !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone else noticed that the Securi blog sets off a malware alarm when attempting to access the main site?!?!
I'm currently using Avast!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31273852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31270484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31282450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31282838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31274794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31275518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_235249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268432
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268784
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272476
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268780
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31269646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31273852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31270484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267756
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31272088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31282450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267618
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31275518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31274794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31282838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31266960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31268010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_235249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_235249.31267470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
