<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_1436251</id>
	<title>Mozilla Plans Fix For Critical Firefox Vulnerability In Next Release</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269101100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Trailrunner7 writes <i>"A month after <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/38608/">an advisory was published</a> detailing a new vulnerability in Firefox, <a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/mozilla-acknowledges-critical-zero-day-flaw-firefox-031910">Mozilla said it has received exploit code for the flaw</a> and is planning to patch the weakness on March 30 in the next release of Firefox. Mozilla officials said Thursday that the vulnerability, which was disclosed February 18 by Secunia, is a critical flaw that <a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/03/18/update-on-secunia-advisory-sa38608/">could result in remote code execution</a> on a vulnerable machine. The vulnerability is in version 3.6 of Firefox."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trailrunner7 writes " A month after an advisory was published detailing a new vulnerability in Firefox , Mozilla said it has received exploit code for the flaw and is planning to patch the weakness on March 30 in the next release of Firefox .
Mozilla officials said Thursday that the vulnerability , which was disclosed February 18 by Secunia , is a critical flaw that could result in remote code execution on a vulnerable machine .
The vulnerability is in version 3.6 of Firefox .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trailrunner7 writes "A month after an advisory was published detailing a new vulnerability in Firefox, Mozilla said it has received exploit code for the flaw and is planning to patch the weakness on March 30 in the next release of Firefox.
Mozilla officials said Thursday that the vulnerability, which was disclosed February 18 by Secunia, is a critical flaw that could result in remote code execution on a vulnerable machine.
The vulnerability is in version 3.6 of Firefox.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912</id>
	<title>Re:1.5 months for a response and release?!</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1269105360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mozilla already has released a beta build of Firefox 3.6.2, which contains the fix for the unpatched vulnerability.</p></div></blockquote><p>  A fix already exists, it's just not in the official release.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla already has released a beta build of Firefox 3.6.2 , which contains the fix for the unpatched vulnerability .
A fix already exists , it 's just not in the official release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla already has released a beta build of Firefox 3.6.2, which contains the fix for the unpatched vulnerability.
A fix already exists, it's just not in the official release.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550064</id>
	<title>Re:Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1269106800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhh... cuz it takes time to write and test patches and not add more (security) bugs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh... cuz it takes time to write and test patches and not add more ( security ) bugs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh... cuz it takes time to write and test patches and not add more (security) bugs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31552596</id>
	<title>IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269083340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Luckily I'm still using IE6.</p><p>Though it wasn't presented to me in EU's browser choice, I was able to prevent any other browser to infect my system with their buggy code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily I 'm still using IE6.Though it was n't presented to me in EU 's browser choice , I was able to prevent any other browser to infect my system with their buggy code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily I'm still using IE6.Though it wasn't presented to me in EU's browser choice, I was able to prevent any other browser to infect my system with their buggy code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550206</id>
	<title>Re:So this just shows, that you can't relax.</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1269108000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just because you run Firefox, you can't relax about malware attacks. Not on Windows anyway. Imagine how quickly an exploit of this type could be integrated into a malware kit, already running on countless compromised sites? No one can relax about buffer/stack smashing, dangling pointers, etc..., until there's a bulletproof safeguard against them built into the OS/processor architecture.</p></div><p>Agreed.  Personally I use <a href="http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/index.xml" title="gentoo.org">Gentoo Hardened</a> [gentoo.org] with PaX and Grsecurity in the kernel plus a hardened toolchain and userspace measures against buffer overflows.  That includes things like address randomization, non-executable pages, mprotect() restrictions, etc.  Further measures are also available, like capability systems.  It's good, though I would not call it "bulletproof", not even if I thought it was.
<br> <br>
Really none of this is any substitute for patching known vulnerabilities.  What it does provide is a second line of defense against vulnerabilities you don't yet know about or cannot yet patch.  Because I am building Firefox (really all my programs) from source with these features enabled, I benefit from some protection against flaws like this.
<br> <br>
I think some of these measures are becoming increasingly common on more mainstream Linux distributions.  That's a very good thing as well, since I realize that many users don't want to compile source code.  For example, one of my friends is set up with OpenSUSE and it has AppArmor and other protections available by default.  I can't remember whether they were enabled by default, but it's still a step in the right direction.  You can arrange your systems so merely discovering that you run a vulnerable version is not good enough for the attacker.  At least with Linux this is readily achievable, though still not commonplace.
<br> <br>
I'd be interested in knowing what options are available for similarly hardening Windows.  What I'd really like to see is for the average system to become difficult enough to compromise that there is no longer fertile ground for automated attacks and the botnets that follow.  I think that's achievable too, if we really wanted to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you run Firefox , you ca n't relax about malware attacks .
Not on Windows anyway .
Imagine how quickly an exploit of this type could be integrated into a malware kit , already running on countless compromised sites ?
No one can relax about buffer/stack smashing , dangling pointers , etc... , until there 's a bulletproof safeguard against them built into the OS/processor architecture.Agreed .
Personally I use Gentoo Hardened [ gentoo.org ] with PaX and Grsecurity in the kernel plus a hardened toolchain and userspace measures against buffer overflows .
That includes things like address randomization , non-executable pages , mprotect ( ) restrictions , etc .
Further measures are also available , like capability systems .
It 's good , though I would not call it " bulletproof " , not even if I thought it was .
Really none of this is any substitute for patching known vulnerabilities .
What it does provide is a second line of defense against vulnerabilities you do n't yet know about or can not yet patch .
Because I am building Firefox ( really all my programs ) from source with these features enabled , I benefit from some protection against flaws like this .
I think some of these measures are becoming increasingly common on more mainstream Linux distributions .
That 's a very good thing as well , since I realize that many users do n't want to compile source code .
For example , one of my friends is set up with OpenSUSE and it has AppArmor and other protections available by default .
I ca n't remember whether they were enabled by default , but it 's still a step in the right direction .
You can arrange your systems so merely discovering that you run a vulnerable version is not good enough for the attacker .
At least with Linux this is readily achievable , though still not commonplace .
I 'd be interested in knowing what options are available for similarly hardening Windows .
What I 'd really like to see is for the average system to become difficult enough to compromise that there is no longer fertile ground for automated attacks and the botnets that follow .
I think that 's achievable too , if we really wanted to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you run Firefox, you can't relax about malware attacks.
Not on Windows anyway.
Imagine how quickly an exploit of this type could be integrated into a malware kit, already running on countless compromised sites?
No one can relax about buffer/stack smashing, dangling pointers, etc..., until there's a bulletproof safeguard against them built into the OS/processor architecture.Agreed.
Personally I use Gentoo Hardened [gentoo.org] with PaX and Grsecurity in the kernel plus a hardened toolchain and userspace measures against buffer overflows.
That includes things like address randomization, non-executable pages, mprotect() restrictions, etc.
Further measures are also available, like capability systems.
It's good, though I would not call it "bulletproof", not even if I thought it was.
Really none of this is any substitute for patching known vulnerabilities.
What it does provide is a second line of defense against vulnerabilities you don't yet know about or cannot yet patch.
Because I am building Firefox (really all my programs) from source with these features enabled, I benefit from some protection against flaws like this.
I think some of these measures are becoming increasingly common on more mainstream Linux distributions.
That's a very good thing as well, since I realize that many users don't want to compile source code.
For example, one of my friends is set up with OpenSUSE and it has AppArmor and other protections available by default.
I can't remember whether they were enabled by default, but it's still a step in the right direction.
You can arrange your systems so merely discovering that you run a vulnerable version is not good enough for the attacker.
At least with Linux this is readily achievable, though still not commonplace.
I'd be interested in knowing what options are available for similarly hardening Windows.
What I'd really like to see is for the average system to become difficult enough to compromise that there is no longer fertile ground for automated attacks and the botnets that follow.
I think that's achievable too, if we really wanted to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550406</id>
	<title>Re:1.5 months for a response and release?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269109680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this the part where some government official is supposed to recommend people stop using Firefox until March 30th, or does that only apply to Internet Explorer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the part where some government official is supposed to recommend people stop using Firefox until March 30th , or does that only apply to Internet Explorer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the part where some government official is supposed to recommend people stop using Firefox until March 30th, or does that only apply to Internet Explorer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31556994</id>
	<title>See the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post is one serious candidate for removal.</p><p>And the least offending part is the word nigger; people should not be enraged by the use of such a word.</p><p>The real problem is using common words for racial slur.</p><p>Funny thing, one can read the entire post replace the word nigger with "car" or "cellphone". It works the same, because all the text is made-up anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post is one serious candidate for removal.And the least offending part is the word nigger ; people should not be enraged by the use of such a word.The real problem is using common words for racial slur.Funny thing , one can read the entire post replace the word nigger with " car " or " cellphone " .
It works the same , because all the text is made-up anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post is one serious candidate for removal.And the least offending part is the word nigger; people should not be enraged by the use of such a word.The real problem is using common words for racial slur.Funny thing, one can read the entire post replace the word nigger with "car" or "cellphone".
It works the same, because all the text is made-up anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549922</id>
	<title>Re:What kept them?</title>
	<author>abhishekupadhya</author>
	<datestamp>1269105360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also if this was IE, browser fanboys would take the flamebait oh-so-quickly. Every browser has its own issues. Deal with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also if this was IE , browser fanboys would take the flamebait oh-so-quickly .
Every browser has its own issues .
Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also if this was IE, browser fanboys would take the flamebait oh-so-quickly.
Every browser has its own issues.
Deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550662</id>
	<title>Re:So this just shows, that you can't relax.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269111660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(And even if your old CPU doesn't support the NX bit, DEP will work for you as they have a software emulation for it in the OS.)</p></div><p>Not true.  The DEP code on machines without NX bit support in the page tables will only protect you from a certain category of attack involving Microsoft's Structured Exception Handling system.  </p><p>
Contrast this with the OpenBSD implementation, which uses the x86 segment protection mechanism to enforce W^X when the NX bit is not present.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( And even if your old CPU does n't support the NX bit , DEP will work for you as they have a software emulation for it in the OS .
) Not true .
The DEP code on machines without NX bit support in the page tables will only protect you from a certain category of attack involving Microsoft 's Structured Exception Handling system .
Contrast this with the OpenBSD implementation , which uses the x86 segment protection mechanism to enforce W ^ X when the NX bit is not present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(And even if your old CPU doesn't support the NX bit, DEP will work for you as they have a software emulation for it in the OS.
)Not true.
The DEP code on machines without NX bit support in the page tables will only protect you from a certain category of attack involving Microsoft's Structured Exception Handling system.
Contrast this with the OpenBSD implementation, which uses the x86 segment protection mechanism to enforce W^X when the NX bit is not present.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550536</id>
	<title>Re:Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1269110760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that it's because it costs a ton of bandwidth (and thus money) to make a patch available.<br>Mozilla's patch system is pretty ugly, since it needs to download 3 megabytes for a few bytes changed.</p><p>And NO, it doesn't have anything to do with validating the patch, since it's very easy to check that the behaviour doesn't change, especially when the impact is very small.<br>Microsoft uses the "we need some time to check the patch" because they have to maintain a lot of differents versions of their OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that it 's because it costs a ton of bandwidth ( and thus money ) to make a patch available.Mozilla 's patch system is pretty ugly , since it needs to download 3 megabytes for a few bytes changed.And NO , it does n't have anything to do with validating the patch , since it 's very easy to check that the behaviour does n't change , especially when the impact is very small.Microsoft uses the " we need some time to check the patch " because they have to maintain a lot of differents versions of their OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that it's because it costs a ton of bandwidth (and thus money) to make a patch available.Mozilla's patch system is pretty ugly, since it needs to download 3 megabytes for a few bytes changed.And NO, it doesn't have anything to do with validating the patch, since it's very easy to check that the behaviour doesn't change, especially when the impact is very small.Microsoft uses the "we need some time to check the patch" because they have to maintain a lot of differents versions of their OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550336</id>
	<title>Re:So this just shows, that you can't relax.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269108900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No one can relax about buffer/stack smashing, dangling pointers, etc..., until there's a bulletproof safeguard against them built into the OS/processor architecture.</i></p><p>That's already done. It's called DEP (NX bit). WinXP have to enable it manually for non-MS apps. Win 7/Vista users enjoy the protection for all apps by default.</p><p>(And even if your old CPU doesn't support the NX bit, DEP will work for you as they have a software emulation for it in the OS.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one can relax about buffer/stack smashing , dangling pointers , etc... , until there 's a bulletproof safeguard against them built into the OS/processor architecture.That 's already done .
It 's called DEP ( NX bit ) .
WinXP have to enable it manually for non-MS apps .
Win 7/Vista users enjoy the protection for all apps by default .
( And even if your old CPU does n't support the NX bit , DEP will work for you as they have a software emulation for it in the OS .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one can relax about buffer/stack smashing, dangling pointers, etc..., until there's a bulletproof safeguard against them built into the OS/processor architecture.That's already done.
It's called DEP (NX bit).
WinXP have to enable it manually for non-MS apps.
Win 7/Vista users enjoy the protection for all apps by default.
(And even if your old CPU doesn't support the NX bit, DEP will work for you as they have a software emulation for it in the OS.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550766</id>
	<title>Re:Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1269112320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the fix could break other things, or even not actually fix anything or fix the security vulnerability completely, or even cause a different security vulnerability (possibly worse).</p><p>Testing is important, especially when you want to attract users, not drive them away.  Unstable software will do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the fix could break other things , or even not actually fix anything or fix the security vulnerability completely , or even cause a different security vulnerability ( possibly worse ) .Testing is important , especially when you want to attract users , not drive them away .
Unstable software will do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the fix could break other things, or even not actually fix anything or fix the security vulnerability completely, or even cause a different security vulnerability (possibly worse).Testing is important, especially when you want to attract users, not drive them away.
Unstable software will do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550124</id>
	<title>Re:1.5 months for a response and release?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) about:config<br>2) app.update.channel = beta</p><p>And join the beta testers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) about : config2 ) app.update.channel = betaAnd join the beta testers : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) about:config2) app.update.channel = betaAnd join the beta testers :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550962</id>
	<title>Re:Why Mozilla should be implemented in Java or...</title>
	<author>shovas</author>
	<datestamp>1269113820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are serious pros and cons one has to weigh choosing an implementation language for a project on the scale and the types of requirements that firefox has. I'm pretty sure your only serious contender in the list was Java and it has significant baggage all of its own. I'll take C/C++, I just wish programmers had a passion for better code in all of its aspects including the ever present yet most fundamental buffer overflow bugs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are serious pros and cons one has to weigh choosing an implementation language for a project on the scale and the types of requirements that firefox has .
I 'm pretty sure your only serious contender in the list was Java and it has significant baggage all of its own .
I 'll take C/C + + , I just wish programmers had a passion for better code in all of its aspects including the ever present yet most fundamental buffer overflow bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are serious pros and cons one has to weigh choosing an implementation language for a project on the scale and the types of requirements that firefox has.
I'm pretty sure your only serious contender in the list was Java and it has significant baggage all of its own.
I'll take C/C++, I just wish programmers had a passion for better code in all of its aspects including the ever present yet most fundamental buffer overflow bugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878</id>
	<title>1.5 months for a response and release?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269104880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a disturbing amount of "Microsoft" in this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a disturbing amount of " Microsoft " in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a disturbing amount of "Microsoft" in this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31555590</id>
	<title>Re:Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269113880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>665KB (http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.5.8/update/linux-i686/en-US/) is significantly larger than 9MB? Does Opera have a reality distortion field built in or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>665KB ( http : //releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.5.8/update/linux-i686/en-US/ ) is significantly larger than 9MB ?
Does Opera have a reality distortion field built in or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>665KB (http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.5.8/update/linux-i686/en-US/) is significantly larger than 9MB?
Does Opera have a reality distortion field built in or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551392</id>
	<title>The REAL question is,</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269116820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But, does it run on Linux?"</p><p>Hey, if the damned exploit won't run on Linux, then it's not a real exploit, is it?  This kind of thing kinda pisses me off.  There are all KINDS of neat software out there, that just won't run on Linux.  It's definitley not fair.  I think it might even be illegal.  In today's modern world, no one is supposed to be excluded from anything.  Not even nerds!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But , does it run on Linux ?
" Hey , if the damned exploit wo n't run on Linux , then it 's not a real exploit , is it ?
This kind of thing kinda pisses me off .
There are all KINDS of neat software out there , that just wo n't run on Linux .
It 's definitley not fair .
I think it might even be illegal .
In today 's modern world , no one is supposed to be excluded from anything .
Not even nerds !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But, does it run on Linux?
"Hey, if the damned exploit won't run on Linux, then it's not a real exploit, is it?
This kind of thing kinda pisses me off.
There are all KINDS of neat software out there, that just won't run on Linux.
It's definitley not fair.
I think it might even be illegal.
In today's modern world, no one is supposed to be excluded from anything.
Not even nerds!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550660</id>
	<title>Why Mozilla should be implemented in Java or...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why Mozilla should be implemented in Java, Smalltalk, Lisp, OCaml or a similar system. I don't know enough about this particular vulnerability to say if it would make a difference, but in general any garbage-collected language without obvious pointer indexing and with built-in array index checking is going to have a lot fewer low level security problems like buffer overruns or duplicate deallocations and so on that can lead to malicious code execution... Is the slight speed boost from a language like C++ worth all the extra security issues at this point, now that we have such fast computers? And with manual memory allocation and deallocation, sometimes code written in C++ can be slower than a language that takes care of it for the programmer in an optimal way... As a reminder:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's\_Tenth\_Rule" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's\_Tenth\_Rule</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp." (or Smalltalk or some other languages...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why Mozilla should be implemented in Java , Smalltalk , Lisp , OCaml or a similar system .
I do n't know enough about this particular vulnerability to say if it would make a difference , but in general any garbage-collected language without obvious pointer indexing and with built-in array index checking is going to have a lot fewer low level security problems like buffer overruns or duplicate deallocations and so on that can lead to malicious code execution... Is the slight speed boost from a language like C + + worth all the extra security issues at this point , now that we have such fast computers ?
And with manual memory allocation and deallocation , sometimes code written in C + + can be slower than a language that takes care of it for the programmer in an optimal way... As a reminder :     http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun 's \ _Tenth \ _Rule [ wikipedia.org ] " Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc , informally-specified , bug-ridden , slow implementation of half of Common Lisp .
" ( or Smalltalk or some other languages... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why Mozilla should be implemented in Java, Smalltalk, Lisp, OCaml or a similar system.
I don't know enough about this particular vulnerability to say if it would make a difference, but in general any garbage-collected language without obvious pointer indexing and with built-in array index checking is going to have a lot fewer low level security problems like buffer overruns or duplicate deallocations and so on that can lead to malicious code execution... Is the slight speed boost from a language like C++ worth all the extra security issues at this point, now that we have such fast computers?
And with manual memory allocation and deallocation, sometimes code written in C++ can be slower than a language that takes care of it for the programmer in an optimal way... As a reminder:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's\_Tenth\_Rule [wikipedia.org]"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
" (or Smalltalk or some other languages...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550072</id>
	<title>Re:Planning? It's not enough!</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1269106800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you being intentionally ridiculous?</p><p>The fix is in the latest beta release already, that binary is slated to be the release candidate, and if testing goes well, it will be the release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you being intentionally ridiculous ? The fix is in the latest beta release already , that binary is slated to be the release candidate , and if testing goes well , it will be the release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you being intentionally ridiculous?The fix is in the latest beta release already, that binary is slated to be the release candidate, and if testing goes well, it will be the release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31553748</id>
	<title>Re:So this just shows, that you can't relax.</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1269091860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd be interested in knowing what options are available for similarly hardening Windows.  What I'd really like to see is for the average system to become difficult enough to compromise that there is no longer fertile ground for automated attacks and the botnets that follow.  I think that's achievable too, if we really wanted to do it.</p></div><p>You could start with using the features already provided in Windows <a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc507874.aspx" title="microsoft.com">http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc507874.aspx</a> [microsoft.com] and <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=A3D1BBED-7F35-4E72-BFB5-B84A526C1565&amp;displaylang=en" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=A3D1BBED-7F35-4E72-BFB5-B84A526C1565&amp;displaylang=en</a> [microsoft.com].</p><p>The nice part is that almost all of the security settings are trivially deployed via Active Directory and GPOs.  Deploying Linux security settings in a corporate environment generally involves rolling your own scripts and distribution methods.</p><p>I'm not saying Windows doesn't have room for improvement in the realm of security.  On the contrary, there are tons of hardening features and settings in Windows but most are turned off by default for compatibility reasons (or really annoying like the Vista default implementation of UAC).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be interested in knowing what options are available for similarly hardening Windows .
What I 'd really like to see is for the average system to become difficult enough to compromise that there is no longer fertile ground for automated attacks and the botnets that follow .
I think that 's achievable too , if we really wanted to do it.You could start with using the features already provided in Windows http : //technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc507874.aspx [ microsoft.com ] and http : //www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx ? familyid = A3D1BBED-7F35-4E72-BFB5-B84A526C1565&amp;displaylang = en [ microsoft.com ] .The nice part is that almost all of the security settings are trivially deployed via Active Directory and GPOs .
Deploying Linux security settings in a corporate environment generally involves rolling your own scripts and distribution methods.I 'm not saying Windows does n't have room for improvement in the realm of security .
On the contrary , there are tons of hardening features and settings in Windows but most are turned off by default for compatibility reasons ( or really annoying like the Vista default implementation of UAC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be interested in knowing what options are available for similarly hardening Windows.
What I'd really like to see is for the average system to become difficult enough to compromise that there is no longer fertile ground for automated attacks and the botnets that follow.
I think that's achievable too, if we really wanted to do it.You could start with using the features already provided in Windows http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc507874.aspx [microsoft.com] and http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=A3D1BBED-7F35-4E72-BFB5-B84A526C1565&amp;displaylang=en [microsoft.com].The nice part is that almost all of the security settings are trivially deployed via Active Directory and GPOs.
Deploying Linux security settings in a corporate environment generally involves rolling your own scripts and distribution methods.I'm not saying Windows doesn't have room for improvement in the realm of security.
On the contrary, there are tons of hardening features and settings in Windows but most are turned off by default for compatibility reasons (or really annoying like the Vista default implementation of UAC).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550226</id>
	<title>Re:1.5 months for a response and release?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269108180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source is great, except won't this mean hackers are able to do a diff on the source code and figure out the exploit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is great , except wo n't this mean hackers are able to do a diff on the source code and figure out the exploit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is great, except won't this mean hackers are able to do a diff on the source code and figure out the exploit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550060</id>
	<title>OMFG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269106740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>OMFG, it's a critical vulnerability and it takes ONE month for them to fix. Those dogs of redmond... That's the advantage of OS. An open source project would have issued a fix in one day....oh wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>OMFG , it 's a critical vulnerability and it takes ONE month for them to fix .
Those dogs of redmond... That 's the advantage of OS .
An open source project would have issued a fix in one day....oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMFG, it's a critical vulnerability and it takes ONE month for them to fix.
Those dogs of redmond... That's the advantage of OS.
An open source project would have issued a fix in one day....oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31553678</id>
	<title>Re:1.5 months for a response and release?!</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1269091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems like a very risky strategy to me. If the vulnerability is already in the wild they should be pushing out the fix ASAP. If it's not in the wild they should be keeping details quiet until they can make a proper release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like a very risky strategy to me .
If the vulnerability is already in the wild they should be pushing out the fix ASAP .
If it 's not in the wild they should be keeping details quiet until they can make a proper release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like a very risky strategy to me.
If the vulnerability is already in the wild they should be pushing out the fix ASAP.
If it's not in the wild they should be keeping details quiet until they can make a proper release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31553584</id>
	<title>Whew!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269090420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing I'm using IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing I 'm using IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing I'm using IE6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550552</id>
	<title>Re:Planning? It's not enough!</title>
	<author>moteyalpha</author>
	<datestamp>1269110820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;humor&gt;There appears to be a critical vulnerability in your logic and why did you not fix it before you posted? Were you not aware of it? Did you not research the problem and preview before submitting a solution? As a result, you created a second and worse vulnerability.&lt;/humor&gt;<br>
As others have pointed out, there is already a patch and I have looked at it myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There appears to be a critical vulnerability in your logic and why did you not fix it before you posted ?
Were you not aware of it ?
Did you not research the problem and preview before submitting a solution ?
As a result , you created a second and worse vulnerability .
As others have pointed out , there is already a patch and I have looked at it myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There appears to be a critical vulnerability in your logic and why did you not fix it before you posted?
Were you not aware of it?
Did you not research the problem and preview before submitting a solution?
As a result, you created a second and worse vulnerability.
As others have pointed out, there is already a patch and I have looked at it myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31555836</id>
	<title>Re:Planning? It's not enough!</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1269162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No Linux/x86\_64 version is available there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No Linux/x86 \ _64 version is available there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No Linux/x86\_64 version is available there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036</id>
	<title>Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269106560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are companies so unwilling to micro-patch their software? If Mozilla has a fix NOW, why are they waiting another ~2 weeks to push it out with the next minor upgrade? Just to avoid making users upgrade too often?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are companies so unwilling to micro-patch their software ?
If Mozilla has a fix NOW , why are they waiting another ~ 2 weeks to push it out with the next minor upgrade ?
Just to avoid making users upgrade too often ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are companies so unwilling to micro-patch their software?
If Mozilla has a fix NOW, why are they waiting another ~2 weeks to push it out with the next minor upgrade?
Just to avoid making users upgrade too often?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549928</id>
	<title>Further details available in Customer Area</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269105540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a critical vulnerability that allows remote code execution. Why did is it taking over a month to fix?</p></div><p>Answer: <a href="http://secunia.com/products/corporate/" title="secunia.com"> <i>Further details available in Customer Area</i> </a> [secunia.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a critical vulnerability that allows remote code execution .
Why did is it taking over a month to fix ? Answer : Further details available in Customer Area [ secunia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a critical vulnerability that allows remote code execution.
Why did is it taking over a month to fix?Answer:  Further details available in Customer Area  [secunia.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550726</id>
	<title>fixed...</title>
	<author>uolamer</author>
	<datestamp>1269112020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alternatively, users can download Release Candidate builds of Firefox 3.6.2 which contains the fix from here:</p><p><a href="https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/</a> [mozilla.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively , users can download Release Candidate builds of Firefox 3.6.2 which contains the fix from here : https : //ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/ [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively, users can download Release Candidate builds of Firefox 3.6.2 which contains the fix from here:https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/ [mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551008</id>
	<title>Re:Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1269114240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the vulnerability were publicly (fully) disclosed, perhaps Mozilla would rush a fix out the door. As far as I know, there has been limited disclosure of the vulnerability to only a few parties, and I haven't heard that the vulnerability is being exploited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the vulnerability were publicly ( fully ) disclosed , perhaps Mozilla would rush a fix out the door .
As far as I know , there has been limited disclosure of the vulnerability to only a few parties , and I have n't heard that the vulnerability is being exploited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the vulnerability were publicly (fully) disclosed, perhaps Mozilla would rush a fix out the door.
As far as I know, there has been limited disclosure of the vulnerability to only a few parties, and I haven't heard that the vulnerability is being exploited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31560708</id>
	<title>Re:1.5 months for a response and release?!</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1269169680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=552350" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=552350</a> [mozilla.org] Please see this bug if you are running FF 3.6. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's the culprit. I wouldn't mind anyone reproducing it, it's sitting unconfirmed as I reported it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 552350 [ mozilla.org ] Please see this bug if you are running FF 3.6 .
I have a sneaking suspicion that it 's the culprit .
I would n't mind anyone reproducing it , it 's sitting unconfirmed as I reported it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=552350 [mozilla.org] Please see this bug if you are running FF 3.6.
I have a sneaking suspicion that it's the culprit.
I wouldn't mind anyone reproducing it, it's sitting unconfirmed as I reported it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549954</id>
	<title>So this just shows, that you can't relax.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269105780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because you run Firefox, you can't relax about malware attacks. Not on Windows anyway. Imagine how quickly an exploit of this type could be integrated into a malware kit, already running on countless compromised sites? No one can relax about buffer/stack smashing, dangling pointers, etc..., until there's a bulletproof safeguard against them built into the OS/processor architecture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you run Firefox , you ca n't relax about malware attacks .
Not on Windows anyway .
Imagine how quickly an exploit of this type could be integrated into a malware kit , already running on countless compromised sites ?
No one can relax about buffer/stack smashing , dangling pointers , etc... , until there 's a bulletproof safeguard against them built into the OS/processor architecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you run Firefox, you can't relax about malware attacks.
Not on Windows anyway.
Imagine how quickly an exploit of this type could be integrated into a malware kit, already running on countless compromised sites?
No one can relax about buffer/stack smashing, dangling pointers, etc..., until there's a bulletproof safeguard against them built into the OS/processor architecture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549902</id>
	<title>Re:1.5 months for a response and release?!</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1269105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The flaw was disclosed to Mozilla only recently (perhaps just a few days ago), and there is already a patched build available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The flaw was disclosed to Mozilla only recently ( perhaps just a few days ago ) , and there is already a patched build available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flaw was disclosed to Mozilla only recently (perhaps just a few days ago), and there is already a patched build available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550598</id>
	<title>Re:Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of the funniest things about Firefox. A minor update, from say 3.6.1 to 3.6.2, is still significantly larger in size than a full download of the latest version of Opera. And what's funnier is that Opera is still more capable than Firefox, runs faster, and uses significantly less memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the funniest things about Firefox .
A minor update , from say 3.6.1 to 3.6.2 , is still significantly larger in size than a full download of the latest version of Opera .
And what 's funnier is that Opera is still more capable than Firefox , runs faster , and uses significantly less memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the funniest things about Firefox.
A minor update, from say 3.6.1 to 3.6.2, is still significantly larger in size than a full download of the latest version of Opera.
And what's funnier is that Opera is still more capable than Firefox, runs faster, and uses significantly less memory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550082</id>
	<title>Re:Planning? It's not enough!</title>
	<author>Athanasius</author>
	<datestamp>1269106920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As someone else already quoted:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla already has released a beta build of Firefox 3.6.2, which contains the fix for the unpatched vulnerability</p></div><p>
You can already go and <a href="https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">download that 3.6.2 beta</a> [mozilla.org] if you want, I did.
</p><p>
The 'planning' is about the data of 3.6.2's release, not whether or not it will have this fix included.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone else already quoted : Mozilla already has released a beta build of Firefox 3.6.2 , which contains the fix for the unpatched vulnerability You can already go and download that 3.6.2 beta [ mozilla.org ] if you want , I did .
The 'planning ' is about the data of 3.6.2 's release , not whether or not it will have this fix included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As someone else already quoted:Mozilla already has released a beta build of Firefox 3.6.2, which contains the fix for the unpatched vulnerability
You can already go and download that 3.6.2 beta [mozilla.org] if you want, I did.
The 'planning' is about the data of 3.6.2's release, not whether or not it will have this fix included.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31552282</id>
	<title>Recommendation</title>
	<author>iPhr0stByt3</author>
	<datestamp>1269081000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, several security bigwigs have recommended using IE or Opera until 3.6.2 is released...  wait, no... as the faulty product is not from MS, we don't care... keep using FireFox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , several security bigwigs have recommended using IE or Opera until 3.6.2 is released... wait , no... as the faulty product is not from MS , we do n't care... keep using FireFox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, several security bigwigs have recommended using IE or Opera until 3.6.2 is released...  wait, no... as the faulty product is not from MS, we don't care... keep using FireFox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551346</id>
	<title>Rediculous Memory Consumption</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1269116520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought rats got in my computer and ate my sdram module, then I discovered it was just FF 3.6. Seriously, anyone one else having a huge memory gobbling problem with this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought rats got in my computer and ate my sdram module , then I discovered it was just FF 3.6 .
Seriously , anyone one else having a huge memory gobbling problem with this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought rats got in my computer and ate my sdram module, then I discovered it was just FF 3.6.
Seriously, anyone one else having a huge memory gobbling problem with this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551126</id>
	<title>Re:Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269115140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Linux world, it&rsquo;s normal that the packages you get via your package manager have custom patches in them. So we get the fixes ASAP anyway. (Of course Windows, being the Playmobil OS that is is, lacks a general package manager.)</p><p>But I also wonder why they don&rsquo;t just shove the minor updates in patch form trough their update functionality. Just like addons can get updated every time you start Firefox. It would be what? A a couple of bytes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Linux world , it    s normal that the packages you get via your package manager have custom patches in them .
So we get the fixes ASAP anyway .
( Of course Windows , being the Playmobil OS that is is , lacks a general package manager .
) But I also wonder why they don    t just shove the minor updates in patch form trough their update functionality .
Just like addons can get updated every time you start Firefox .
It would be what ?
A a couple of bytes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Linux world, it’s normal that the packages you get via your package manager have custom patches in them.
So we get the fixes ASAP anyway.
(Of course Windows, being the Playmobil OS that is is, lacks a general package manager.
)But I also wonder why they don’t just shove the minor updates in patch form trough their update functionality.
Just like addons can get updated every time you start Firefox.
It would be what?
A a couple of bytes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550198</id>
	<title>Right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if this was IE, the bug would already be patched in what is a beta release... oh no. IE takes months if not years to patch holes in production releases.</p><p>MS fanboy's, always miss those tiny details for some reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if this was IE , the bug would already be patched in what is a beta release... oh no .
IE takes months if not years to patch holes in production releases.MS fanboy 's , always miss those tiny details for some reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if this was IE, the bug would already be patched in what is a beta release... oh no.
IE takes months if not years to patch holes in production releases.MS fanboy's, always miss those tiny details for some reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551098</id>
	<title>Re:So this just shows, that you can't relax.</title>
	<author>Rick17JJ</author>
	<datestamp>1269114960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run Firefox sandboxed from within SandboxIE on my Windows XP computer. SandboxIE builds a virtual sandbox around the default browser on a computer. In addition, my computer is set up to where I am normally logged in with a user name. I only log in as administrator, when needed. I also use the NoScript and Adblock Plus extensions for Firefox.  I only enable the running of scripts for certain Websites that I trust. Perhaps, those measures might help, but I am not a computer expert and do not know for sure.<br><br>I use Kubuntu Linux on my other computer, which is my main home computer. That is the computer which I am using at the moment. I also use Firefox on it, but there is not a Linux version of SandboxIE. Perhaps, I should use the  Konqueror browser instead, until the final release of the patched version of Firefox becomes available. The Konqueror browser is already installed on this computer.<br><br>In the Linux version of Firefox, I also use the NoScript and Adblock Plus extensions. Of course, when using the Linux computer, I am normally logged in under under my user name, with the limited privileges which go with it. Like most Linux users, I do not run as root all the time. When I temporarily need more privileges I use sudo.<br><br>I am not a computer expert.  I am just someone who uses both Linux and also Windows XP on my two computers at home.<br><br>http://esecurityplanet.com/features/article.php/3842331/Sandboxie-Blocking-Web-Based-Malware-From-Your-PC.htm</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run Firefox sandboxed from within SandboxIE on my Windows XP computer .
SandboxIE builds a virtual sandbox around the default browser on a computer .
In addition , my computer is set up to where I am normally logged in with a user name .
I only log in as administrator , when needed .
I also use the NoScript and Adblock Plus extensions for Firefox .
I only enable the running of scripts for certain Websites that I trust .
Perhaps , those measures might help , but I am not a computer expert and do not know for sure.I use Kubuntu Linux on my other computer , which is my main home computer .
That is the computer which I am using at the moment .
I also use Firefox on it , but there is not a Linux version of SandboxIE .
Perhaps , I should use the Konqueror browser instead , until the final release of the patched version of Firefox becomes available .
The Konqueror browser is already installed on this computer.In the Linux version of Firefox , I also use the NoScript and Adblock Plus extensions .
Of course , when using the Linux computer , I am normally logged in under under my user name , with the limited privileges which go with it .
Like most Linux users , I do not run as root all the time .
When I temporarily need more privileges I use sudo.I am not a computer expert .
I am just someone who uses both Linux and also Windows XP on my two computers at home.http : //esecurityplanet.com/features/article.php/3842331/Sandboxie-Blocking-Web-Based-Malware-From-Your-PC.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run Firefox sandboxed from within SandboxIE on my Windows XP computer.
SandboxIE builds a virtual sandbox around the default browser on a computer.
In addition, my computer is set up to where I am normally logged in with a user name.
I only log in as administrator, when needed.
I also use the NoScript and Adblock Plus extensions for Firefox.
I only enable the running of scripts for certain Websites that I trust.
Perhaps, those measures might help, but I am not a computer expert and do not know for sure.I use Kubuntu Linux on my other computer, which is my main home computer.
That is the computer which I am using at the moment.
I also use Firefox on it, but there is not a Linux version of SandboxIE.
Perhaps, I should use the  Konqueror browser instead, until the final release of the patched version of Firefox becomes available.
The Konqueror browser is already installed on this computer.In the Linux version of Firefox, I also use the NoScript and Adblock Plus extensions.
Of course, when using the Linux computer, I am normally logged in under under my user name, with the limited privileges which go with it.
Like most Linux users, I do not run as root all the time.
When I temporarily need more privileges I use sudo.I am not a computer expert.
I am just someone who uses both Linux and also Windows XP on my two computers at home.http://esecurityplanet.com/features/article.php/3842331/Sandboxie-Blocking-Web-Based-Malware-From-Your-PC.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549900</id>
	<title>What kept them?</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1269105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so, since the summary didn't make this clear and I didn't find any explanation in the article, maybe someone on Slashdot can shed some light on this. What took Mozilla so long? It's a critical vulnerability that allows remote code execution. Why did is it taking over a month to fix?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so , since the summary did n't make this clear and I did n't find any explanation in the article , maybe someone on Slashdot can shed some light on this .
What took Mozilla so long ?
It 's a critical vulnerability that allows remote code execution .
Why did is it taking over a month to fix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so, since the summary didn't make this clear and I didn't find any explanation in the article, maybe someone on Slashdot can shed some light on this.
What took Mozilla so long?
It's a critical vulnerability that allows remote code execution.
Why did is it taking over a month to fix?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550464</id>
	<title>Re:Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1269110160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a flaw is found they have to find how to fix it, write the code to fix it and the test it (so they're not left with a flaw due to the fix) and that isn't just a case of opening Firefox on one computer. They have numerous versions to test for.
<br> <br>
I'm not sur eif the fix was pushed out already because this week I've have updates cropping up for all my instances of Firefox at home and work. So either they're early or I'll get another one on the 30th. Either way, they're clearly doing their best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a flaw is found they have to find how to fix it , write the code to fix it and the test it ( so they 're not left with a flaw due to the fix ) and that is n't just a case of opening Firefox on one computer .
They have numerous versions to test for .
I 'm not sur eif the fix was pushed out already because this week I 've have updates cropping up for all my instances of Firefox at home and work .
So either they 're early or I 'll get another one on the 30th .
Either way , they 're clearly doing their best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a flaw is found they have to find how to fix it, write the code to fix it and the test it (so they're not left with a flaw due to the fix) and that isn't just a case of opening Firefox on one computer.
They have numerous versions to test for.
I'm not sur eif the fix was pushed out already because this week I've have updates cropping up for all my instances of Firefox at home and work.
So either they're early or I'll get another one on the 30th.
Either way, they're clearly doing their best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550440</id>
	<title>Re:Planning? It's not enough!</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1269109980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may already be released. I've had an update pushed through to all my instances of Firefox this week. If not, just over a month is better than some company's records for getting a fix out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may already be released .
I 've had an update pushed through to all my instances of Firefox this week .
If not , just over a month is better than some company 's records for getting a fix out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may already be released.
I've had an update pushed through to all my instances of Firefox this week.
If not, just over a month is better than some company's records for getting a fix out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31607440</id>
	<title>Re:Someone enlighten me</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1269455220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Just to avoid making users upgrade too often?</p><p>Yes.  The typical monthly Firefox minor update ships on the order of 30-100 fixes depending on the month (security problems, stability problems, compat problems, etc).  Micro-patching would involve 1-3 upgrades a day.</p><p>If the upgrade could happen silently and without any user notification (which is what Chrome is working and and what Mozilla would like to get to), that may be acceptable.  But even just telling the user three times a day "hey, I just updated" is a deal-breaker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Just to avoid making users upgrade too often ? Yes .
The typical monthly Firefox minor update ships on the order of 30-100 fixes depending on the month ( security problems , stability problems , compat problems , etc ) .
Micro-patching would involve 1-3 upgrades a day.If the upgrade could happen silently and without any user notification ( which is what Chrome is working and and what Mozilla would like to get to ) , that may be acceptable .
But even just telling the user three times a day " hey , I just updated " is a deal-breaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Just to avoid making users upgrade too often?Yes.
The typical monthly Firefox minor update ships on the order of 30-100 fixes depending on the month (security problems, stability problems, compat problems, etc).
Micro-patching would involve 1-3 upgrades a day.If the upgrade could happen silently and without any user notification (which is what Chrome is working and and what Mozilla would like to get to), that may be acceptable.
But even just telling the user three times a day "hey, I just updated" is a deal-breaker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31555258</id>
	<title>Damn youtube made me upgrade.</title>
	<author>ImYourVirus</author>
	<datestamp>1269108600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck I just upgraded too, like a week or so ago. =\</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck I just upgraded too , like a week or so ago .
= \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck I just upgraded too, like a week or so ago.
=\</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549870</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269104760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550568</id>
	<title>Updating... how to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which distro would make it easier to update FFox and other apps?</p><p>I've used the rpm ones and rpm Uvh is somewhat easy; repositories are not that immediate though and dependence is not always simple to solve.</p><p>Ubuntu has well-maintained repositories and apt-search/apt-get makes ones life so easy -- except when you find you can't get the last FF. I installed the last one once, only to see it returned to the version present in the official repositories.</p><p>And there's always the problem of binary availability... not that compiling is that frightening -- but regarding binaries, it's either Fedora or Debian/Ubuntu.</p><p>To further complicate matters, I don't want Gnome...</p><p>And what happened to distro-agnostic packaging?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which distro would make it easier to update FFox and other apps ? I 've used the rpm ones and rpm Uvh is somewhat easy ; repositories are not that immediate though and dependence is not always simple to solve.Ubuntu has well-maintained repositories and apt-search/apt-get makes ones life so easy -- except when you find you ca n't get the last FF .
I installed the last one once , only to see it returned to the version present in the official repositories.And there 's always the problem of binary availability... not that compiling is that frightening -- but regarding binaries , it 's either Fedora or Debian/Ubuntu.To further complicate matters , I do n't want Gnome...And what happened to distro-agnostic packaging ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which distro would make it easier to update FFox and other apps?I've used the rpm ones and rpm Uvh is somewhat easy; repositories are not that immediate though and dependence is not always simple to solve.Ubuntu has well-maintained repositories and apt-search/apt-get makes ones life so easy -- except when you find you can't get the last FF.
I installed the last one once, only to see it returned to the version present in the official repositories.And there's always the problem of binary availability... not that compiling is that frightening -- but regarding binaries, it's either Fedora or Debian/Ubuntu.To further complicate matters, I don't want Gnome...And what happened to distro-agnostic packaging?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974</id>
	<title>Planning? It's not enough!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269105960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am afraid, just planning for a fix isn't enough. Saying definitively that a fix will be available is more useful.</p><p>You might ask why:</p><p>Because plans are notorious for remaining just that. That is, plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am afraid , just planning for a fix is n't enough .
Saying definitively that a fix will be available is more useful.You might ask why : Because plans are notorious for remaining just that .
That is , plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am afraid, just planning for a fix isn't enough.
Saying definitively that a fix will be available is more useful.You might ask why:Because plans are notorious for remaining just that.
That is, plans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31552298</id>
	<title>Re:1.5 months for a response and release?!</title>
	<author>iPhr0stByt3</author>
	<datestamp>1269081120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS haters - please mod parent troll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS haters - please mod parent troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS haters - please mod parent troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550426</id>
	<title>Re:What kept them?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1269109860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's patched on March 30 then that's just over a month since it was revealed. That's not too bad and better than Microsoft's record as a whole.
<br> <br>
No one claims Firefox is perfect (or any browser for that matter) but IE gets more grief because it most certainly has more problems than the rest. If it weren't for competition as well we'd probably still be stuck on IE6 too since MS was quite happy to stop updating IE when they thought they had the market cornered.
<br> <br>
So no need to get defensive about an awful browser like IE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's patched on March 30 then that 's just over a month since it was revealed .
That 's not too bad and better than Microsoft 's record as a whole .
No one claims Firefox is perfect ( or any browser for that matter ) but IE gets more grief because it most certainly has more problems than the rest .
If it were n't for competition as well we 'd probably still be stuck on IE6 too since MS was quite happy to stop updating IE when they thought they had the market cornered .
So no need to get defensive about an awful browser like IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's patched on March 30 then that's just over a month since it was revealed.
That's not too bad and better than Microsoft's record as a whole.
No one claims Firefox is perfect (or any browser for that matter) but IE gets more grief because it most certainly has more problems than the rest.
If it weren't for competition as well we'd probably still be stuck on IE6 too since MS was quite happy to stop updating IE when they thought they had the market cornered.
So no need to get defensive about an awful browser like IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549922</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31553748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31556994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31560708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31553678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31607440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31555836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31552298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1436251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31555590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1436251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31556994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1436251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1436251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1436251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31553748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1436251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1436251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31555590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31607440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1436251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31555836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1436251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31560708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31549912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31552298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31553678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31551392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1436251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1436251.31550962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
