<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_11_1621249</id>
	<title>Apple Blocking iPhone Security Software</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1268329200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Speaking exclusively to PC Pro, Eugene Kaspersky has claimed Apple has repeatedly refused to deliver the software development kit necessary to  <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/356344/kaspersky-apple-is-blocking-iphone-security-software">design security software for the phone</a>. 'We have been in contact for two years with Apple to develop our anti-theft software, [but] still we do not have permission,' said Kaspersky. Although he admits the risk of viruses infecting the iPhone is 'almost zero,' he claims that securing the data on the handset is critical, especially as iPhones are increasingly being used for business purposes. 'I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving, or the right way,' Kaspersky added. 'It's just a corporate culture &mdash; it wants to control everything.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Speaking exclusively to PC Pro , Eugene Kaspersky has claimed Apple has repeatedly refused to deliver the software development kit necessary to design security software for the phone .
'We have been in contact for two years with Apple to develop our anti-theft software , [ but ] still we do not have permission, ' said Kaspersky .
Although he admits the risk of viruses infecting the iPhone is 'almost zero, ' he claims that securing the data on the handset is critical , especially as iPhones are increasingly being used for business purposes .
'I do n't want to say Apple 's is the wrong way of behaving , or the right way, ' Kaspersky added .
'It 's just a corporate culture    it wants to control everything .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Speaking exclusively to PC Pro, Eugene Kaspersky has claimed Apple has repeatedly refused to deliver the software development kit necessary to  design security software for the phone.
'We have been in contact for two years with Apple to develop our anti-theft software, [but] still we do not have permission,' said Kaspersky.
Although he admits the risk of viruses infecting the iPhone is 'almost zero,' he claims that securing the data on the handset is critical, especially as iPhones are increasingly being used for business purposes.
'I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving, or the right way,' Kaspersky added.
'It's just a corporate culture — it wants to control everything.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31619022</id>
	<title>Re:it wants to control everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269518220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, apple rules! it even has web-filters in place to prevent you from entering any malicious web page!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , apple rules !
it even has web-filters in place to prevent you from entering any malicious web page ! !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, apple rules!
it even has web-filters in place to prevent you from entering any malicious web page!!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441336</id>
	<title>Re:it wants to control everything</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1268336100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>.which is one way of preventing malware, it's working pretty well so far for that platform.</p></div></blockquote><p>Depends on your definition of malware.  Spyware is rife on the app store.  Pinch Media's analytics tracking is all over the app store..  more than 30 million downloads contained their tracking software... at least according to Pinch Media itself.</p><p>Here is everything that apps with pinch media analytics are sending to them:</p><p>Your iPhones unique ID, iPhone model and OS version, application info, whether or not the iphone is jailbroken, whether or not the application is pirated, time &amp; date you start and stop the application, your current latitude &amp; longitude, and if facebook is installed on your iphone, your gender and birthday.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.which is one way of preventing malware , it 's working pretty well so far for that platform.Depends on your definition of malware .
Spyware is rife on the app store .
Pinch Media 's analytics tracking is all over the app store.. more than 30 million downloads contained their tracking software... at least according to Pinch Media itself.Here is everything that apps with pinch media analytics are sending to them : Your iPhones unique ID , iPhone model and OS version , application info , whether or not the iphone is jailbroken , whether or not the application is pirated , time &amp; date you start and stop the application , your current latitude &amp; longitude , and if facebook is installed on your iphone , your gender and birthday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.which is one way of preventing malware, it's working pretty well so far for that platform.Depends on your definition of malware.
Spyware is rife on the app store.
Pinch Media's analytics tracking is all over the app store..  more than 30 million downloads contained their tracking software... at least according to Pinch Media itself.Here is everything that apps with pinch media analytics are sending to them:Your iPhones unique ID, iPhone model and OS version, application info, whether or not the iphone is jailbroken, whether or not the application is pirated, time &amp; date you start and stop the application, your current latitude &amp; longitude, and if facebook is installed on your iphone, your gender and birthday.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441012</id>
	<title>Re:No shock</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1268334780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought only hardcore fanboys use MobileMe. Everyone else realized Hundred Bucks per year is a bit steep. Especially with other companies offering similar services for less or free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought only hardcore fanboys use MobileMe .
Everyone else realized Hundred Bucks per year is a bit steep .
Especially with other companies offering similar services for less or free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought only hardcore fanboys use MobileMe.
Everyone else realized Hundred Bucks per year is a bit steep.
Especially with other companies offering similar services for less or free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440950</id>
	<title>Re:At least good news !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268334540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why? Kaspersky has some of the best products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Kaspersky has some of the best products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Kaspersky has some of the best products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31442006</id>
	<title>While we're at it ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1268338680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to add that Kaspersky's worthless method of validating their desktop PC client's anti-virus subscription's expiry date is "the wrong way of behaving" too!<br>We have their corporate AV product where I work, and every few weeks, I get a phone call from at least someone who says their anti-virus stopped updating, and keeps popping up a warning about "black.lst" being missing or corrupt.  I wind up forcing a manual refresh from the server console and eventually, it realizes it IS still a legally licensed copy and starts working again.</p><p>Nice way to treat your paying customers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....  make the product randomly quit on you (with an error message that doesn't at all explain what's really going on, no less).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to add that Kaspersky 's worthless method of validating their desktop PC client 's anti-virus subscription 's expiry date is " the wrong way of behaving " too ! We have their corporate AV product where I work , and every few weeks , I get a phone call from at least someone who says their anti-virus stopped updating , and keeps popping up a warning about " black.lst " being missing or corrupt .
I wind up forcing a manual refresh from the server console and eventually , it realizes it IS still a legally licensed copy and starts working again.Nice way to treat your paying customers .... make the product randomly quit on you ( with an error message that does n't at all explain what 's really going on , no less ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to add that Kaspersky's worthless method of validating their desktop PC client's anti-virus subscription's expiry date is "the wrong way of behaving" too!We have their corporate AV product where I work, and every few weeks, I get a phone call from at least someone who says their anti-virus stopped updating, and keeps popping up a warning about "black.lst" being missing or corrupt.
I wind up forcing a manual refresh from the server console and eventually, it realizes it IS still a legally licensed copy and starts working again.Nice way to treat your paying customers ....  make the product randomly quit on you (with an error message that doesn't at all explain what's really going on, no less).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441458</id>
	<title>Re:However Spyware on the iPhone is rife</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1268336580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However Spyware on the iPhone is rife</p></div><p>That's not a bug, that's a feature.<br>The whole point of locking down hardware (at least on a mobile platform) is to create a captive audience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However Spyware on the iPhone is rifeThat 's not a bug , that 's a feature.The whole point of locking down hardware ( at least on a mobile platform ) is to create a captive audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However Spyware on the iPhone is rifeThat's not a bug, that's a feature.The whole point of locking down hardware (at least on a mobile platform) is to create a captive audience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440716</id>
	<title>Wrong way of behaving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268333640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving</p></div><p>Well, I do. It&rsquo;s the wrong way of behaving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to say Apple 's is the wrong way of behavingWell , I do .
It    s the wrong way of behaving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behavingWell, I do.
It’s the wrong way of behaving.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440750</id>
	<title>until tethering</title>
	<author>Mekkah</author>
	<datestamp>1268333820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is almost zero until they enable tethering.
<br> <br>
Oh wait, that won't happen either.
<br> <br> <b>*returns ipad</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is almost zero until they enable tethering .
Oh wait , that wo n't happen either .
* returns ipad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is almost zero until they enable tethering.
Oh wait, that won't happen either.
*returns ipad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441878</id>
	<title>Re:No shock</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1268338320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where in this story is it mentioned that anyone is forbidden from using an SDK?  Kaspersky was whining that there was no SDK delivered that would aid in developing 3rd party security software.  Not that he was forbidden from using some existing SDK.  Maybe next time you should read the summary more than once in order to actual comprehend it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where in this story is it mentioned that anyone is forbidden from using an SDK ?
Kaspersky was whining that there was no SDK delivered that would aid in developing 3rd party security software .
Not that he was forbidden from using some existing SDK .
Maybe next time you should read the summary more than once in order to actual comprehend it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where in this story is it mentioned that anyone is forbidden from using an SDK?
Kaspersky was whining that there was no SDK delivered that would aid in developing 3rd party security software.
Not that he was forbidden from using some existing SDK.
Maybe next time you should read the summary more than once in order to actual comprehend it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440524</id>
	<title>We already have an anti-virus</title>
	<author>omgarthas</author>
	<datestamp>1268332980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called Apple App Store, they control absolutely every piece of software that can be installed in your Iphone, I can't see the need for any anti-virus solution...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called Apple App Store , they control absolutely every piece of software that can be installed in your Iphone , I ca n't see the need for any anti-virus solution.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called Apple App Store, they control absolutely every piece of software that can be installed in your Iphone, I can't see the need for any anti-virus solution...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31445694</id>
	<title>KGB in Apple Store</title>
	<author>oleop</author>
	<datestamp>1268307480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this the dude who said: "Everyone should and must have an identification, or internet passport,"???
Apple, keep him out of your store.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the dude who said : " Everyone should and must have an identification , or internet passport , " ? ? ?
Apple , keep him out of your store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the dude who said: "Everyone should and must have an identification, or internet passport,"???
Apple, keep him out of your store.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441308</id>
	<title>Re:it wants to control everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268335980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and when shoe finally drops and self-propogating malware is loose on the iphone network (and it WILL happen) Apple will be screwed. Apple's unproven anti-malware software, whatever it is, has hardly received the stress-testing that Kaspersky has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and when shoe finally drops and self-propogating malware is loose on the iphone network ( and it WILL happen ) Apple will be screwed .
Apple 's unproven anti-malware software , whatever it is , has hardly received the stress-testing that Kaspersky has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and when shoe finally drops and self-propogating malware is loose on the iphone network (and it WILL happen) Apple will be screwed.
Apple's unproven anti-malware software, whatever it is, has hardly received the stress-testing that Kaspersky has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441226</id>
	<title>Actually, I'm undecided on this.</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1268335680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm undecided on whether this <em>particular</em> behavior on Apple's part is a bad thing (as opposed to other cases, like the Google Voice one, where I'm sure it's a bad thing, and the Opera Mini one, where I'm at least leaning that way).</p><p>On desktops, it seems to me that various web ads or email messages encouraging users to install some third-party "security tool" are a major infection vector for malware/spyware.  Many, many of the sorts of people who buy Apple products -- and I say this as an Apple user myself -- are... not the sorts of people who routinely make informed decisions about computer security.</p><p>Certainly, <em>if</em> third parties are permitted to sell iPhone security software,  one might reasonably want them to be subject to considerably more oversight than other software, because of the potential for damage.  Again, not because the software is "magic" or other software can't behave badly, but because of the particular ways most real-world users brains just shut down when dealing with security issues.  Most people really don't have the mindset for this stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm undecided on whether this particular behavior on Apple 's part is a bad thing ( as opposed to other cases , like the Google Voice one , where I 'm sure it 's a bad thing , and the Opera Mini one , where I 'm at least leaning that way ) .On desktops , it seems to me that various web ads or email messages encouraging users to install some third-party " security tool " are a major infection vector for malware/spyware .
Many , many of the sorts of people who buy Apple products -- and I say this as an Apple user myself -- are... not the sorts of people who routinely make informed decisions about computer security.Certainly , if third parties are permitted to sell iPhone security software , one might reasonably want them to be subject to considerably more oversight than other software , because of the potential for damage .
Again , not because the software is " magic " or other software ca n't behave badly , but because of the particular ways most real-world users brains just shut down when dealing with security issues .
Most people really do n't have the mindset for this stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm undecided on whether this particular behavior on Apple's part is a bad thing (as opposed to other cases, like the Google Voice one, where I'm sure it's a bad thing, and the Opera Mini one, where I'm at least leaning that way).On desktops, it seems to me that various web ads or email messages encouraging users to install some third-party "security tool" are a major infection vector for malware/spyware.
Many, many of the sorts of people who buy Apple products -- and I say this as an Apple user myself -- are... not the sorts of people who routinely make informed decisions about computer security.Certainly, if third parties are permitted to sell iPhone security software,  one might reasonably want them to be subject to considerably more oversight than other software, because of the potential for damage.
Again, not because the software is "magic" or other software can't behave badly, but because of the particular ways most real-world users brains just shut down when dealing with security issues.
Most people really don't have the mindset for this stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441276</id>
	<title>Re:No shock</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268335800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would apple want to allow someone to create and market direct competition for it's own anti-theft service (MobileMe)?</p></div><p>Why doesn't Microsoft forbid Firefox and OO.org teams from using Windows SDK?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would apple want to allow someone to create and market direct competition for it 's own anti-theft service ( MobileMe ) ? Why does n't Microsoft forbid Firefox and OO.org teams from using Windows SDK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would apple want to allow someone to create and market direct competition for it's own anti-theft service (MobileMe)?Why doesn't Microsoft forbid Firefox and OO.org teams from using Windows SDK?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31443940</id>
	<title>Wipe Your Stolen iPhone with Exchange 07</title>
	<author>aulimbaugh</author>
	<datestamp>1268300940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're running your iPhone mail with Exchange 2007 on the backend - you can wipe your device if you ever lose it via OWA.  Just log in, click on Options, then Mobile Devices on the left side and select "Wipe All Data From Device..." in the main window.  Don't worry about testing it - I already did that for y'all a few months ago.  Yup, it works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're running your iPhone mail with Exchange 2007 on the backend - you can wipe your device if you ever lose it via OWA .
Just log in , click on Options , then Mobile Devices on the left side and select " Wipe All Data From Device... " in the main window .
Do n't worry about testing it - I already did that for y'all a few months ago .
Yup , it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're running your iPhone mail with Exchange 2007 on the backend - you can wipe your device if you ever lose it via OWA.
Just log in, click on Options, then Mobile Devices on the left side and select "Wipe All Data From Device..." in the main window.
Don't worry about testing it - I already did that for y'all a few months ago.
Yup, it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440508</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here folks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268332920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iphone don't need no security software</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iphone do n't need no security software</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iphone don't need no security software</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440862</id>
	<title>niche player</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268334240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Niche players to don't sell 50 million+ handsets... I think Apple will continue to do just fine with the closed and controlled approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Niche players to do n't sell 50 million + handsets... I think Apple will continue to do just fine with the closed and controlled approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Niche players to don't sell 50 million+ handsets... I think Apple will continue to do just fine with the closed and controlled approach.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31443962</id>
	<title>Yes, Virginia, there IS iPhone Security.</title>
	<author>Winn Schwartau</author>
	<datestamp>1268301000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kaspersky is running into trouble for all sorts of reasons, especially taking a traditional, load up the endpoint with tons of processes and overhead. There is one Apple approved iPhone security product. Just announced a couple of days ago. www.MobileActiveDefense.Com

Truth in Advertising: M.A.D. is so good, cool, etc. etc. I signed on as Chairman of the company. First product in 16 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaspersky is running into trouble for all sorts of reasons , especially taking a traditional , load up the endpoint with tons of processes and overhead .
There is one Apple approved iPhone security product .
Just announced a couple of days ago .
www.MobileActiveDefense.Com Truth in Advertising : M.A.D .
is so good , cool , etc .
etc. I signed on as Chairman of the company .
First product in 16 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaspersky is running into trouble for all sorts of reasons, especially taking a traditional, load up the endpoint with tons of processes and overhead.
There is one Apple approved iPhone security product.
Just announced a couple of days ago.
www.MobileActiveDefense.Com

Truth in Advertising: M.A.D.
is so good, cool, etc.
etc. I signed on as Chairman of the company.
First product in 16 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440660</id>
	<title>Re:We already have an anti-virus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268333400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two words: browser exploits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words : browser exploits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words: browser exploits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441232</id>
	<title>A solution looking for a problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268335740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The iPhone3GS already has built in hardware level encryption of the entire storage device. It also has BSD jails for apps to run inside of and there is the Appstore approval process.
<p>
This "software" could not be ordinary software but would rather require Apple opening up the OS to third party extensions which ran at a privileged level above the sandboxes. I just don't see that every happening for a couple of reasons.
</p><p>
1. The Kaspersky software itself could have exploitable flaws and given that it would be running at a higher privilege level than regular apps, that opens up a new attack vector for web based exploits to use.
</p><p>
2. Such software would potentially slow the OS down and cause a significant battery drain for no real gain of protection.
</p><p>
Much has been made about FUD articles that say that other apps can access contacts without asking for permission. No shit sherlock. That is a "feature" of the official API and the app approval process is supposed to ferret out nefarious uses of contact lists. I would hate to see UAC style boxes for apps each time I wanted to see a contact list in a third party app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone3GS already has built in hardware level encryption of the entire storage device .
It also has BSD jails for apps to run inside of and there is the Appstore approval process .
This " software " could not be ordinary software but would rather require Apple opening up the OS to third party extensions which ran at a privileged level above the sandboxes .
I just do n't see that every happening for a couple of reasons .
1. The Kaspersky software itself could have exploitable flaws and given that it would be running at a higher privilege level than regular apps , that opens up a new attack vector for web based exploits to use .
2. Such software would potentially slow the OS down and cause a significant battery drain for no real gain of protection .
Much has been made about FUD articles that say that other apps can access contacts without asking for permission .
No shit sherlock .
That is a " feature " of the official API and the app approval process is supposed to ferret out nefarious uses of contact lists .
I would hate to see UAC style boxes for apps each time I wanted to see a contact list in a third party app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone3GS already has built in hardware level encryption of the entire storage device.
It also has BSD jails for apps to run inside of and there is the Appstore approval process.
This "software" could not be ordinary software but would rather require Apple opening up the OS to third party extensions which ran at a privileged level above the sandboxes.
I just don't see that every happening for a couple of reasons.
1. The Kaspersky software itself could have exploitable flaws and given that it would be running at a higher privilege level than regular apps, that opens up a new attack vector for web based exploits to use.
2. Such software would potentially slow the OS down and cause a significant battery drain for no real gain of protection.
Much has been made about FUD articles that say that other apps can access contacts without asking for permission.
No shit sherlock.
That is a "feature" of the official API and the app approval process is supposed to ferret out nefarious uses of contact lists.
I would hate to see UAC style boxes for apps each time I wanted to see a contact list in a third party app.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31442780</id>
	<title>Not necessarily "corporate culture"</title>
	<author>jemenake</author>
	<datestamp>1268340840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kaspersky ascribes it to Apple wanting to "control everything", but Apple already doesn't mind turning over control of about 100,000 apps to other developers already.
<br> <br>
I think it's something else. Well, two things, actually:
<br> <br>
First, I think that Apple wants to keep the word "virus" and the word "iPhone" from being any more linked in the consumer's mind than they have to be. If a range of anti-virus tools becomes available for the iPhone, then it implicitly says that viruses are something you need to be <i>concerned</i> about if you purchase an iPhone. For example, imagine you went to a singles bar and, right at the door, there were a bunch of dispensers doling out free condoms. That suddenly changes what you think about the moral fortitude of the individuals found within, as well as their venereal state.
<br> <br>
Secondly, if anti-virus apps are available for the iPhone, then that adds a layer of protection for people who get their apps from less-reputable sources. I'm speaking, of course, about Cydia and the whole jailbreaking scene. I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you that the primary reason I haven't jailbroken my iPhone and availed myself of all of the Cydia apps is because I can't be assured of their source and that they don't have some "new special ingredient" added by the packager. The money I pay to Apple's app-store is paying for Apple to <i>vet</i> the apps I'm downloading.
<br> <br>
Anti-virus tools for the iPhone would tend to "level the playing field", as it were, between the security of using legitimate apps versus using Cydia apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaspersky ascribes it to Apple wanting to " control everything " , but Apple already does n't mind turning over control of about 100,000 apps to other developers already .
I think it 's something else .
Well , two things , actually : First , I think that Apple wants to keep the word " virus " and the word " iPhone " from being any more linked in the consumer 's mind than they have to be .
If a range of anti-virus tools becomes available for the iPhone , then it implicitly says that viruses are something you need to be concerned about if you purchase an iPhone .
For example , imagine you went to a singles bar and , right at the door , there were a bunch of dispensers doling out free condoms .
That suddenly changes what you think about the moral fortitude of the individuals found within , as well as their venereal state .
Secondly , if anti-virus apps are available for the iPhone , then that adds a layer of protection for people who get their apps from less-reputable sources .
I 'm speaking , of course , about Cydia and the whole jailbreaking scene .
I can only speak for myself , but I can tell you that the primary reason I have n't jailbroken my iPhone and availed myself of all of the Cydia apps is because I ca n't be assured of their source and that they do n't have some " new special ingredient " added by the packager .
The money I pay to Apple 's app-store is paying for Apple to vet the apps I 'm downloading .
Anti-virus tools for the iPhone would tend to " level the playing field " , as it were , between the security of using legitimate apps versus using Cydia apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaspersky ascribes it to Apple wanting to "control everything", but Apple already doesn't mind turning over control of about 100,000 apps to other developers already.
I think it's something else.
Well, two things, actually:
 
First, I think that Apple wants to keep the word "virus" and the word "iPhone" from being any more linked in the consumer's mind than they have to be.
If a range of anti-virus tools becomes available for the iPhone, then it implicitly says that viruses are something you need to be concerned about if you purchase an iPhone.
For example, imagine you went to a singles bar and, right at the door, there were a bunch of dispensers doling out free condoms.
That suddenly changes what you think about the moral fortitude of the individuals found within, as well as their venereal state.
Secondly, if anti-virus apps are available for the iPhone, then that adds a layer of protection for people who get their apps from less-reputable sources.
I'm speaking, of course, about Cydia and the whole jailbreaking scene.
I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you that the primary reason I haven't jailbroken my iPhone and availed myself of all of the Cydia apps is because I can't be assured of their source and that they don't have some "new special ingredient" added by the packager.
The money I pay to Apple's app-store is paying for Apple to vet the apps I'm downloading.
Anti-virus tools for the iPhone would tend to "level the playing field", as it were, between the security of using legitimate apps versus using Cydia apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31442370</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong way of behaving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268339760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you misunderstood; he was referring to the grammatical incorrectness of the sentence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you misunderstood ; he was referring to the grammatical incorrectness of the sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you misunderstood; he was referring to the grammatical incorrectness of the sentence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31446846</id>
	<title>Re:At least good news !</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1268312820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It just doesn't release those to the public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just does n't release those to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just doesn't release those to the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676</id>
	<title>it wants to control everything</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1268333520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"it wants to control everything"</i> <br> <br>...which is one way of preventing malware, it's working pretty well so far for that platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" it wants to control everything " ...which is one way of preventing malware , it 's working pretty well so far for that platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"it wants to control everything"  ...which is one way of preventing malware, it's working pretty well so far for that platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441662</id>
	<title>Re:it wants to control everything</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1268337540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another would be to allow no software at all to run at all on the device. 100\% security from malware. Of course functionality may suffer some...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another would be to allow no software at all to run at all on the device .
100 \ % security from malware .
Of course functionality may suffer some.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another would be to allow no software at all to run at all on the device.
100\% security from malware.
Of course functionality may suffer some...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440628</id>
	<title>We already have something like that</title>
	<author>BulletMagnet</author>
	<datestamp>1268333280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good Mobile Messaging will do what Kaspersky's trying to do - control the handsets on an administrative level.  You lose your iPhone? Administrator remotely wipes your unit.</p><p>Mind you, I don't have nor want one of these toys, but it works great across our WinMo and Android fleet...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good Mobile Messaging will do what Kaspersky 's trying to do - control the handsets on an administrative level .
You lose your iPhone ?
Administrator remotely wipes your unit.Mind you , I do n't have nor want one of these toys , but it works great across our WinMo and Android fleet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good Mobile Messaging will do what Kaspersky's trying to do - control the handsets on an administrative level.
You lose your iPhone?
Administrator remotely wipes your unit.Mind you, I don't have nor want one of these toys, but it works great across our WinMo and Android fleet...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440960</id>
	<title>Probably not anti-security as much as SOP</title>
	<author>DarkkOne</author>
	<datestamp>1268334600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess it's the simple fact that one program still can't really interact with another program's data.<br> <br>
The likelihood of Apple ever really changing this is probably next to zero, and it's the main reason I have no interest in the iPhone. What use is a computer in my pocket when I either need to use one program that is complex enough to handle every task I could possible need, or I need to make my tasks so simple that no data need ever be shared between two tools?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess it 's the simple fact that one program still ca n't really interact with another program 's data .
The likelihood of Apple ever really changing this is probably next to zero , and it 's the main reason I have no interest in the iPhone .
What use is a computer in my pocket when I either need to use one program that is complex enough to handle every task I could possible need , or I need to make my tasks so simple that no data need ever be shared between two tools ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess it's the simple fact that one program still can't really interact with another program's data.
The likelihood of Apple ever really changing this is probably next to zero, and it's the main reason I have no interest in the iPhone.
What use is a computer in my pocket when I either need to use one program that is complex enough to handle every task I could possible need, or I need to make my tasks so simple that no data need ever be shared between two tools?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441962</id>
	<title>Re:At least good news !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268338560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NOD32.</p><p>Owns Kaspersky in every test i try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NOD32.Owns Kaspersky in every test i try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOD32.Owns Kaspersky in every test i try.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441076</id>
	<title>Re:At least good news !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268335140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..meanwhile, in the real world (yknow, that big one *out there* where most users could not give a toss what runs on their computers, just so long as it runs), Kaspersky is still the first thing I would recommend any average PC user installs.</p><p>I would also happily admit that the "enhanced" versions are full of overblown, overboard BS, however, anyone wants to name me a better PC AV solution than Kaspersky, the floor, as they say, is yours?</p><p>- Nope, thought not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..meanwhile , in the real world ( yknow , that big one * out there * where most users could not give a toss what runs on their computers , just so long as it runs ) , Kaspersky is still the first thing I would recommend any average PC user installs.I would also happily admit that the " enhanced " versions are full of overblown , overboard BS , however , anyone wants to name me a better PC AV solution than Kaspersky , the floor , as they say , is yours ? - Nope , thought not ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..meanwhile, in the real world (yknow, that big one *out there* where most users could not give a toss what runs on their computers, just so long as it runs), Kaspersky is still the first thing I would recommend any average PC user installs.I would also happily admit that the "enhanced" versions are full of overblown, overboard BS, however, anyone wants to name me a better PC AV solution than Kaspersky, the floor, as they say, is yours?- Nope, thought not ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441802</id>
	<title>good riddance</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1268338020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> 'I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving, or the right way,' Kaspersky added. 'It's just a corporate culture -- it wants to control everything.'"</p></div><p> - look who is talking.  A guy, whose entire success (his and the wife's) is based on pretty much a monopoly set up in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet block by Microsoft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'I do n't want to say Apple 's is the wrong way of behaving , or the right way, ' Kaspersky added .
'It 's just a corporate culture -- it wants to control everything .
' " - look who is talking .
A guy , whose entire success ( his and the wife 's ) is based on pretty much a monopoly set up in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet block by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving, or the right way,' Kaspersky added.
'It's just a corporate culture -- it wants to control everything.
'" - look who is talking.
A guy, whose entire success (his and the wife's) is based on pretty much a monopoly set up in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet block by Microsoft.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440922</id>
	<title>No sh1t statement of the day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268334480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kaspersky added. "It's just a corporate culture &mdash; it wants to control everything".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaspersky added .
" It 's just a corporate culture    it wants to control everything " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaspersky added.
"It's just a corporate culture — it wants to control everything".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441608</id>
	<title>3mod dowN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268337240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">beZ fun. It used</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>beZ fun .
It used [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>beZ fun.
It used [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31447854</id>
	<title>Break the wall for the security expert to fix?</title>
	<author>bonelyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1268320080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you are jailbroken, what's the point of security software? There is one source of infection: App store. However all apps are screened down to source code level. Malware-free is an one of the important user experience. Giving out security SDK only benefit security software vendors in creating a new market but in return it is impossible to protect from SDK leaking out to hacker who will have more information on vulnerabilities. Maybe we can argue that malware can break into iPhone from outside. But firstly it is mostly through buffer overflow which require good understanding of the non-Intel-based iPhone processor. More importantly the limitation on multi-tasking prohibited virus to spread inside the phone. So, only very sophisticated malware can spread and the odd is very very small.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you are jailbroken , what 's the point of security software ?
There is one source of infection : App store .
However all apps are screened down to source code level .
Malware-free is an one of the important user experience .
Giving out security SDK only benefit security software vendors in creating a new market but in return it is impossible to protect from SDK leaking out to hacker who will have more information on vulnerabilities .
Maybe we can argue that malware can break into iPhone from outside .
But firstly it is mostly through buffer overflow which require good understanding of the non-Intel-based iPhone processor .
More importantly the limitation on multi-tasking prohibited virus to spread inside the phone .
So , only very sophisticated malware can spread and the odd is very very small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you are jailbroken, what's the point of security software?
There is one source of infection: App store.
However all apps are screened down to source code level.
Malware-free is an one of the important user experience.
Giving out security SDK only benefit security software vendors in creating a new market but in return it is impossible to protect from SDK leaking out to hacker who will have more information on vulnerabilities.
Maybe we can argue that malware can break into iPhone from outside.
But firstly it is mostly through buffer overflow which require good understanding of the non-Intel-based iPhone processor.
More importantly the limitation on multi-tasking prohibited virus to spread inside the phone.
So, only very sophisticated malware can spread and the odd is very very small.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441796</id>
	<title>Re:No shock</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1268338020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone else realized Hundred Bucks per year is a bit steep.</p></div><p>If $8.50 a month is a steep expense for you then maybe you should stop living off the allowance from your parents and get a real job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone else realized Hundred Bucks per year is a bit steep.If $ 8.50 a month is a steep expense for you then maybe you should stop living off the allowance from your parents and get a real job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone else realized Hundred Bucks per year is a bit steep.If $8.50 a month is a steep expense for you then maybe you should stop living off the allowance from your parents and get a real job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31447600</id>
	<title>Re:No shock</title>
	<author>exomondo</author>
	<datestamp>1268317740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would MS allow someone to create and market direct competition for it's own internet browser? Because it's healthy competition, and it's only <b>illegal</b> to prevent that if you're big enough be considered a monopoly, this doesn't mean the practise isn't detrimental to the end user and still bullshit to begin with because if the Apple was considered a monopoly with the iPhone then this exact same behavior would be illegal, but currently Apple is too small for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would MS allow someone to create and market direct competition for it 's own internet browser ?
Because it 's healthy competition , and it 's only illegal to prevent that if you 're big enough be considered a monopoly , this does n't mean the practise is n't detrimental to the end user and still bullshit to begin with because if the Apple was considered a monopoly with the iPhone then this exact same behavior would be illegal , but currently Apple is too small for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would MS allow someone to create and market direct competition for it's own internet browser?
Because it's healthy competition, and it's only illegal to prevent that if you're big enough be considered a monopoly, this doesn't mean the practise isn't detrimental to the end user and still bullshit to begin with because if the Apple was considered a monopoly with the iPhone then this exact same behavior would be illegal, but currently Apple is too small for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441416</id>
	<title>Re:No shock</title>
	<author>vijayiyer</author>
	<datestamp>1268336340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would they want another app in the background using the phone's resources to duplicate the functionality of MobileMe? Good question.<br>It's not like this app would be functional if it only ran in the foreground.<br>Yet another guy whining because he has a shitty concept for an app with no user benefit that has been rejected. That there exist other shitty apps on the app store doesn't make his any better or warrant an exception by Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they want another app in the background using the phone 's resources to duplicate the functionality of MobileMe ?
Good question.It 's not like this app would be functional if it only ran in the foreground.Yet another guy whining because he has a shitty concept for an app with no user benefit that has been rejected .
That there exist other shitty apps on the app store does n't make his any better or warrant an exception by Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they want another app in the background using the phone's resources to duplicate the functionality of MobileMe?
Good question.It's not like this app would be functional if it only ran in the foreground.Yet another guy whining because he has a shitty concept for an app with no user benefit that has been rejected.
That there exist other shitty apps on the app store doesn't make his any better or warrant an exception by Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441098</id>
	<title>Re:We already have an anti-virus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268335260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because none of those apps could possibly have a bug that would allow malicious code to be installed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because none of those apps could possibly have a bug that would allow malicious code to be installed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because none of those apps could possibly have a bug that would allow malicious code to be installed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441316</id>
	<title>Re:At least good news !</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1268335980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Leaving Kaspersky out is the first interesting feature I see in this whole Apple App Store scheme !</p></div><p>Kaspersky has to wait in line with the rest of us to get at portions of the iPhone API's that aren't "public" or blessed by Apple. Their situation isn't even remotely unique.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving Kaspersky out is the first interesting feature I see in this whole Apple App Store scheme ! Kaspersky has to wait in line with the rest of us to get at portions of the iPhone API 's that are n't " public " or blessed by Apple .
Their situation is n't even remotely unique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving Kaspersky out is the first interesting feature I see in this whole Apple App Store scheme !Kaspersky has to wait in line with the rest of us to get at portions of the iPhone API's that aren't "public" or blessed by Apple.
Their situation isn't even remotely unique.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31444238</id>
	<title>Good riddance</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1268301840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want rubbish anti-virus software on a smartphone. They cripple the performance of the device.</p><p>I don't care if I get a virus on my phone, I can restore it back to a backup easily. It's not like I'm going to loose valuable work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want rubbish anti-virus software on a smartphone .
They cripple the performance of the device.I do n't care if I get a virus on my phone , I can restore it back to a backup easily .
It 's not like I 'm going to loose valuable work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want rubbish anti-virus software on a smartphone.
They cripple the performance of the device.I don't care if I get a virus on my phone, I can restore it back to a backup easily.
It's not like I'm going to loose valuable work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440746</id>
	<title>"Kernel docs", not just a normal SDK?</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1268333760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not familiar with mac development, but the "SDK" in question would basically be kernel internal functions docs/unreleased API docs, yes? There may be other reasons besides appstore control freakery that they don't want to release and/or license that out? And even if Kaspersky would reverse-engineer the necessary parts of the kernel, which they obviously could (and their employees probably already partially have, unofficially) they would be sued to hell and back if they used that data in a product (which would be obvious, since there's no other way besides the official channels to get at it)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not familiar with mac development , but the " SDK " in question would basically be kernel internal functions docs/unreleased API docs , yes ?
There may be other reasons besides appstore control freakery that they do n't want to release and/or license that out ?
And even if Kaspersky would reverse-engineer the necessary parts of the kernel , which they obviously could ( and their employees probably already partially have , unofficially ) they would be sued to hell and back if they used that data in a product ( which would be obvious , since there 's no other way besides the official channels to get at it ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not familiar with mac development, but the "SDK" in question would basically be kernel internal functions docs/unreleased API docs, yes?
There may be other reasons besides appstore control freakery that they don't want to release and/or license that out?
And even if Kaspersky would reverse-engineer the necessary parts of the kernel, which they obviously could (and their employees probably already partially have, unofficially) they would be sued to hell and back if they used that data in a product (which would be obvious, since there's no other way besides the official channels to get at it)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440522</id>
	<title>At least good news !</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1268332980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leaving Kaspersky out is the first interesting feature I see in this whole Apple App Store scheme !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving Kaspersky out is the first interesting feature I see in this whole Apple App Store scheme !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving Kaspersky out is the first interesting feature I see in this whole Apple App Store scheme !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441536</id>
	<title>Jonathan Schwartz's fake career white wash</title>
	<author>stock</author>
	<datestamp>1268336940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>On Tom's hardware Jonathan Ian Schwartz gets a career whitewash job.<br>After Scott McNeally got booted out of Sun's through Steve Ballmer's $ 2 billion<br>"rescue" job to keep Sun running, which effectively shut McNeally up from<br>all hostile keynote speech comments about Microsoft, its now Jonathan Schwartz<br>who gets his hair greased big time at tomshardware.com :<br><br>http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Steve-Jobs-Jonathan-Schwartz-Sun,9844.html<br><br>Reportedly it was Schwartz who co-founded [b]Lighthouse Design Ltd.[/b] in 1989 and<br>therefor has supplied Steve Jobs his NeXtStep Software. This sounds rather far-fetched<br>to me as at the time when Schwartz joined Sun Microsystems nothing of this was mentioned.<br><br>Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE<br>Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist</htmltext>
<tokenext>On Tom 's hardware Jonathan Ian Schwartz gets a career whitewash job.After Scott McNeally got booted out of Sun 's through Steve Ballmer 's $ 2 billion " rescue " job to keep Sun running , which effectively shut McNeally up fromall hostile keynote speech comments about Microsoft , its now Jonathan Schwartzwho gets his hair greased big time at tomshardware.com : http : //www.tomshardware.com/news/Steve-Jobs-Jonathan-Schwartz-Sun,9844.htmlReportedly it was Schwartz who co-founded [ b ] Lighthouse Design Ltd. [ /b ] in 1989 andtherefor has supplied Steve Jobs his NeXtStep Software .
This sounds rather far-fetchedto me as at the time when Schwartz joined Sun Microsystems nothing of this was mentioned.Robert M. Stockmann - RHCENetwork Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Tom's hardware Jonathan Ian Schwartz gets a career whitewash job.After Scott McNeally got booted out of Sun's through Steve Ballmer's $ 2 billion"rescue" job to keep Sun running, which effectively shut McNeally up fromall hostile keynote speech comments about Microsoft, its now Jonathan Schwartzwho gets his hair greased big time at tomshardware.com :http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Steve-Jobs-Jonathan-Schwartz-Sun,9844.htmlReportedly it was Schwartz who co-founded [b]Lighthouse Design Ltd.[/b] in 1989 andtherefor has supplied Steve Jobs his NeXtStep Software.
This sounds rather far-fetchedto me as at the time when Schwartz joined Sun Microsystems nothing of this was mentioned.Robert M. Stockmann - RHCENetwork Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31448148</id>
	<title>Re:We already have something like that</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1268322480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Good Mobile Messaging will do what Kaspersky's trying to do - <b>control the handsets</b> on an administrative level.</p></div></blockquote><p>

And Apple can not allow anyone else to be able to do that. Remember the marketing, it's not "your Iphone" it's "your Apple Iphone", just so you remember who really owns it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good Mobile Messaging will do what Kaspersky 's trying to do - control the handsets on an administrative level .
And Apple can not allow anyone else to be able to do that .
Remember the marketing , it 's not " your Iphone " it 's " your Apple Iphone " , just so you remember who really owns it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good Mobile Messaging will do what Kaspersky's trying to do - control the handsets on an administrative level.
And Apple can not allow anyone else to be able to do that.
Remember the marketing, it's not "your Iphone" it's "your Apple Iphone", just so you remember who really owns it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441138</id>
	<title>butthurt</title>
	<author>stokessd</author>
	<datestamp>1268335440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears that Kaspersky is butthurt because it sees a potential market for more crap we don't need and the controllers of that market don't want, and have the ability to lock them out of that market.</p><p>From Apple's point of view, they have remote wipe on both the corporate and personal levels already.  And having somebody inside your shorts providing duplicate functionality is fail from top to bottom.  I'm surprised that apple even answered the phone when they saw who was calling.</p><p>Also Kaspersky can have the SDK anytime they want, it's free.  They will have to pay $99 to actually deploy the apps though.  What they want is a super special "inside your shorts" SDK that I'd bet isn't coming anytime soon.</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that Kaspersky is butthurt because it sees a potential market for more crap we do n't need and the controllers of that market do n't want , and have the ability to lock them out of that market.From Apple 's point of view , they have remote wipe on both the corporate and personal levels already .
And having somebody inside your shorts providing duplicate functionality is fail from top to bottom .
I 'm surprised that apple even answered the phone when they saw who was calling.Also Kaspersky can have the SDK anytime they want , it 's free .
They will have to pay $ 99 to actually deploy the apps though .
What they want is a super special " inside your shorts " SDK that I 'd bet is n't coming anytime soon.Sheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that Kaspersky is butthurt because it sees a potential market for more crap we don't need and the controllers of that market don't want, and have the ability to lock them out of that market.From Apple's point of view, they have remote wipe on both the corporate and personal levels already.
And having somebody inside your shorts providing duplicate functionality is fail from top to bottom.
I'm surprised that apple even answered the phone when they saw who was calling.Also Kaspersky can have the SDK anytime they want, it's free.
They will have to pay $99 to actually deploy the apps though.
What they want is a super special "inside your shorts" SDK that I'd bet isn't coming anytime soon.Sheldon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440532</id>
	<title>However Spyware on the iPhone is rife</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268332980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this guy created a whole site because of the problem and the iPhones inability to block/stop such behaviour<br><a href="http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this guy created a whole site because of the problem and the iPhones inability to block/stop such behaviourhttp : //i-phone-home.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this guy created a whole site because of the problem and the iPhones inability to block/stop such behaviourhttp://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31443298</id>
	<title>Re:We already have an anti-virus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268299140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, ignorant apple-hater. The iPhone has kernel level jailing on all your appstore purchased apps. They will not be able to break out of their EUID of 501. Surely a kernel local exploit may exist, but as of right now the jailing works quite well to prevent malicious code installation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , ignorant apple-hater .
The iPhone has kernel level jailing on all your appstore purchased apps .
They will not be able to break out of their EUID of 501 .
Surely a kernel local exploit may exist , but as of right now the jailing works quite well to prevent malicious code installation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, ignorant apple-hater.
The iPhone has kernel level jailing on all your appstore purchased apps.
They will not be able to break out of their EUID of 501.
Surely a kernel local exploit may exist, but as of right now the jailing works quite well to prevent malicious code installation...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441628</id>
	<title>Re:At least good news !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268337300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being the best of shit still makes you shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being the best of shit still makes you shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being the best of shit still makes you shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536</id>
	<title>No shock</title>
	<author>kennedy</author>
	<datestamp>1268332980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would apple want to allow someone to create and market direct competition for it's own anti-theft service (MobileMe)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would apple want to allow someone to create and market direct competition for it 's own anti-theft service ( MobileMe ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would apple want to allow someone to create and market direct competition for it's own anti-theft service (MobileMe)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31442482</id>
	<title>Waiting for multitasking</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1268340060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is probably waiting until they implement <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/11/1749244" title="slashdot.org">multitasking in the next OS</a> [slashdot.org], so that they can have Kaspersky's software constantly running in the background constantly using 50\% of the CPU to block malware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is probably waiting until they implement multitasking in the next OS [ slashdot.org ] , so that they can have Kaspersky 's software constantly running in the background constantly using 50 \ % of the CPU to block malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is probably waiting until they implement multitasking in the next OS [slashdot.org], so that they can have Kaspersky's software constantly running in the background constantly using 50\% of the CPU to block malware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440820</id>
	<title>Just say "no".</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1268334060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The antivirus companies have been pushing antivirus software for handheld devices since 1999.</p><p>In the succeeding decade... so far as I'm aware... the damage caused by viruses on handhelds, <i>ALL handhelds</i>, has been less than the damage due to one false positive incident caused by Norton Antivirus shortly after the pointless hubbub over the Palm "Phage" malware.</p><p>Antivirus software for handhelds... just say "no".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The antivirus companies have been pushing antivirus software for handheld devices since 1999.In the succeeding decade... so far as I 'm aware... the damage caused by viruses on handhelds , ALL handhelds , has been less than the damage due to one false positive incident caused by Norton Antivirus shortly after the pointless hubbub over the Palm " Phage " malware.Antivirus software for handhelds... just say " no " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The antivirus companies have been pushing antivirus software for handheld devices since 1999.In the succeeding decade... so far as I'm aware... the damage caused by viruses on handhelds, ALL handhelds, has been less than the damage due to one false positive incident caused by Norton Antivirus shortly after the pointless hubbub over the Palm "Phage" malware.Antivirus software for handhelds... just say "no".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31442370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31619022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31447600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31448148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31443298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31446846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31442006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1621249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31619022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31447600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31446846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31442006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31442370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31448148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31442482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31443298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31444238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31441458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1621249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1621249.31440820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
