<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_1949203</id>
	<title>Mozilla Labs To Bring Address Book To Firefox</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269079020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: <i>"Mozilla has announced the availability of an experimental new <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/mozilla-labs-builds-add-on-to-bring-addressbook-to-firefox.ars">add-on for Firefox that is designed to import information about the user's contacts</a> from a variety of Web services and other sources. The add-on makes contact details easily accessible to the user and can also selectively supply it to remote Web applications. ... After the add-on has imported and indexed the user's contact data, it becomes available to the user through an integrated contact management tool that functions like an address book. One of Mozilla's first experiments is an autocompletion feature that allows users to select a contact when they are typing an e-mail address into a Web form. ... To make the browser's contact database accessible to Web applications, the add-on uses the W3C Contacts API specification."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica : " Mozilla has announced the availability of an experimental new add-on for Firefox that is designed to import information about the user 's contacts from a variety of Web services and other sources .
The add-on makes contact details easily accessible to the user and can also selectively supply it to remote Web applications .
... After the add-on has imported and indexed the user 's contact data , it becomes available to the user through an integrated contact management tool that functions like an address book .
One of Mozilla 's first experiments is an autocompletion feature that allows users to select a contact when they are typing an e-mail address into a Web form .
... To make the browser 's contact database accessible to Web applications , the add-on uses the W3C Contacts API specification .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "Mozilla has announced the availability of an experimental new add-on for Firefox that is designed to import information about the user's contacts from a variety of Web services and other sources.
The add-on makes contact details easily accessible to the user and can also selectively supply it to remote Web applications.
... After the add-on has imported and indexed the user's contact data, it becomes available to the user through an integrated contact management tool that functions like an address book.
One of Mozilla's first experiments is an autocompletion feature that allows users to select a contact when they are typing an e-mail address into a Web form.
... To make the browser's contact database accessible to Web applications, the add-on uses the W3C Contacts API specification.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553924</id>
	<title>Re:Please fix Firefox 3.6 on Windows first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269093240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you share your Firefox 3.8 from the future with us poor mortals?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you share your Firefox 3.8 from the future with us poor mortals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you share your Firefox 3.8 from the future with us poor mortals?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31568242</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1269272400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True, but that doesn't seem like what this is used for?  As I read it, it's more for populating forms with other people's addresses from your address book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but that does n't seem like what this is used for ?
As I read it , it 's more for populating forms with other people 's addresses from your address book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but that doesn't seem like what this is used for?
As I read it, it's more for populating forms with other people's addresses from your address book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553272</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1269087840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That hole is being closed elsewhere (this feature depends on websites providing a Portable Contacts API, consuming websites can use that same API to obtain contacts, rather than asking users for credentials).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That hole is being closed elsewhere ( this feature depends on websites providing a Portable Contacts API , consuming websites can use that same API to obtain contacts , rather than asking users for credentials ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That hole is being closed elsewhere (this feature depends on websites providing a Portable Contacts API, consuming websites can use that same API to obtain contacts, rather than asking users for credentials).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554476</id>
	<title>Why stop there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not add Email as well, and a calendar, and a chat client.</p><p>And Firefox is a dumb name, you should call it something like MarinePrimate</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not add Email as well , and a calendar , and a chat client.And Firefox is a dumb name , you should call it something like MarinePrimate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not add Email as well, and a calendar, and a chat client.And Firefox is a dumb name, you should call it something like MarinePrimate</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553316</id>
	<title>Please fix Firefox 3.6 on Windows first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even with minimal addons, FF 3.6 on my Windows machine takes upto a gig of memory after about 30mins of usage/being left idle especially with flash based sites. I don't have this problem on my trust Ubuntu netbook but the version of FF on that machine is 3.8.

In the last one week, I've had to recommend 4 Firefox users to switch to Chrome (they've never even heard of Chrome). What's happening Mozilla labs? (Do an internet search for "firefox 3.6 memory hog"). So, umm, before introducing new addons - why don't you fix your browser's issues on your largest install base eh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with minimal addons , FF 3.6 on my Windows machine takes upto a gig of memory after about 30mins of usage/being left idle especially with flash based sites .
I do n't have this problem on my trust Ubuntu netbook but the version of FF on that machine is 3.8 .
In the last one week , I 've had to recommend 4 Firefox users to switch to Chrome ( they 've never even heard of Chrome ) .
What 's happening Mozilla labs ?
( Do an internet search for " firefox 3.6 memory hog " ) .
So , umm , before introducing new addons - why do n't you fix your browser 's issues on your largest install base eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with minimal addons, FF 3.6 on my Windows machine takes upto a gig of memory after about 30mins of usage/being left idle especially with flash based sites.
I don't have this problem on my trust Ubuntu netbook but the version of FF on that machine is 3.8.
In the last one week, I've had to recommend 4 Firefox users to switch to Chrome (they've never even heard of Chrome).
What's happening Mozilla labs?
(Do an internet search for "firefox 3.6 memory hog").
So, umm, before introducing new addons - why don't you fix your browser's issues on your largest install base eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553478</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah great... Let's make Firefox even more bloated!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah great... Let 's make Firefox even more bloated !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah great... Let's make Firefox even more bloated!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553042</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1269086460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not a big fan of the "well, I don't see a need therefore nobody should"</p></div></blockquote><p>
I take it you are not a government employee.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a big fan of the " well , I do n't see a need therefore nobody should " I take it you are not a government employee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a big fan of the "well, I don't see a need therefore nobody should"
I take it you are not a government employee.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553454</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My case against an address book (particularly on unix-ish platforms) is that applications should do one thing and one thing well.</p><p>Firefox is already WAY over-bloated, if it has to have an address book, lets hope it's a different process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My case against an address book ( particularly on unix-ish platforms ) is that applications should do one thing and one thing well.Firefox is already WAY over-bloated , if it has to have an address book , lets hope it 's a different process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My case against an address book (particularly on unix-ish platforms) is that applications should do one thing and one thing well.Firefox is already WAY over-bloated, if it has to have an address book, lets hope it's a different process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552800</id>
	<title>Re:Danger... keep that door locked.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269084840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mix an easily-read address book with a small bit of untrusted code, and you've got a worm with the capability of sending victim-specific e-mail. Upload that list to a server, and you've just given your favorite people the gift of spam. Microsoft learned this the hard way when most users were using Outlook Express and Windows Address Book and both of them had wide-open for scripting interfaces, so that lead to a mess. We don't use those things anymore.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm not sure what else you expected from Microsoft.  Scriptable address books, e-mail clients that execute untrusted remote content, ActiveX, etc... how many times do we have to go through this before somebody at MS says "hey, y'know, maybe this whole trusting-unverifiable-content thing was a bad idea."  Only one is needed to understand the entire concept and never make that mistake again.  Yet, it was made repeatedly.  So, Microsoft is not the best example for comparison.  I really don't care if you love MS or hate their guts, you don't need to hate them to be honest about how slow they've been to learn this lesson.</p><blockquote><div><p>Please... let's make sure this requires a stored-password check so that we're sure only apps the user trusts to read the address book. All of the cool web apps are doing it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I would hope that's considered a bare minimum required feature.  I also hope there's an option to disable the remote-access function entirely and have just a local address book that cannot send its data over the network.  I think that for many users, this is going to be like the Awesome Bar, with many forum posts dedicated to instructions for (at least partly) disabling it.  I love Firefox, it's my main browser, and I use it all the time, but I really hope Mozilla is damned careful about how they implement this idea.  At least the first time Microsoft learned the hard way about trusting remote content, they could claim they didn't know any better.  My issue with Microsoft is that they made the mistake again and again before they showed any signs of learning from it.  Mozilla won't even have an excuse for the first time, if they fail to learn Microsoft's lesson about remote content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mix an easily-read address book with a small bit of untrusted code , and you 've got a worm with the capability of sending victim-specific e-mail .
Upload that list to a server , and you 've just given your favorite people the gift of spam .
Microsoft learned this the hard way when most users were using Outlook Express and Windows Address Book and both of them had wide-open for scripting interfaces , so that lead to a mess .
We do n't use those things anymore .
I 'm not sure what else you expected from Microsoft .
Scriptable address books , e-mail clients that execute untrusted remote content , ActiveX , etc... how many times do we have to go through this before somebody at MS says " hey , y'know , maybe this whole trusting-unverifiable-content thing was a bad idea .
" Only one is needed to understand the entire concept and never make that mistake again .
Yet , it was made repeatedly .
So , Microsoft is not the best example for comparison .
I really do n't care if you love MS or hate their guts , you do n't need to hate them to be honest about how slow they 've been to learn this lesson.Please... let 's make sure this requires a stored-password check so that we 're sure only apps the user trusts to read the address book .
All of the cool web apps are doing it .
I would hope that 's considered a bare minimum required feature .
I also hope there 's an option to disable the remote-access function entirely and have just a local address book that can not send its data over the network .
I think that for many users , this is going to be like the Awesome Bar , with many forum posts dedicated to instructions for ( at least partly ) disabling it .
I love Firefox , it 's my main browser , and I use it all the time , but I really hope Mozilla is damned careful about how they implement this idea .
At least the first time Microsoft learned the hard way about trusting remote content , they could claim they did n't know any better .
My issue with Microsoft is that they made the mistake again and again before they showed any signs of learning from it .
Mozilla wo n't even have an excuse for the first time , if they fail to learn Microsoft 's lesson about remote content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mix an easily-read address book with a small bit of untrusted code, and you've got a worm with the capability of sending victim-specific e-mail.
Upload that list to a server, and you've just given your favorite people the gift of spam.
Microsoft learned this the hard way when most users were using Outlook Express and Windows Address Book and both of them had wide-open for scripting interfaces, so that lead to a mess.
We don't use those things anymore.
I'm not sure what else you expected from Microsoft.
Scriptable address books, e-mail clients that execute untrusted remote content, ActiveX, etc... how many times do we have to go through this before somebody at MS says "hey, y'know, maybe this whole trusting-unverifiable-content thing was a bad idea.
"  Only one is needed to understand the entire concept and never make that mistake again.
Yet, it was made repeatedly.
So, Microsoft is not the best example for comparison.
I really don't care if you love MS or hate their guts, you don't need to hate them to be honest about how slow they've been to learn this lesson.Please... let's make sure this requires a stored-password check so that we're sure only apps the user trusts to read the address book.
All of the cool web apps are doing it.
I would hope that's considered a bare minimum required feature.
I also hope there's an option to disable the remote-access function entirely and have just a local address book that cannot send its data over the network.
I think that for many users, this is going to be like the Awesome Bar, with many forum posts dedicated to instructions for (at least partly) disabling it.
I love Firefox, it's my main browser, and I use it all the time, but I really hope Mozilla is damned careful about how they implement this idea.
At least the first time Microsoft learned the hard way about trusting remote content, they could claim they didn't know any better.
My issue with Microsoft is that they made the mistake again and again before they showed any signs of learning from it.
Mozilla won't even have an excuse for the first time, if they fail to learn Microsoft's lesson about remote content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554278</id>
	<title>Re:Please fix Firefox 3.6 on Windows first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269096360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong forum. If you're serious about having FireFox issues, post in one of their forums where you might make some progress. Here you'll get nothing but scorn. Well, derision and scorn. Anger, derision and scorn... wait, let me start over...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong forum .
If you 're serious about having FireFox issues , post in one of their forums where you might make some progress .
Here you 'll get nothing but scorn .
Well , derision and scorn .
Anger , derision and scorn... wait , let me start over.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong forum.
If you're serious about having FireFox issues, post in one of their forums where you might make some progress.
Here you'll get nothing but scorn.
Well, derision and scorn.
Anger, derision and scorn... wait, let me start over...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552936</id>
	<title>Seamonkey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269085860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems you would be using Seamonkey instead of FIrefox if this sort of all-in-one approach was appealing to you.  I don't see the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems you would be using Seamonkey instead of FIrefox if this sort of all-in-one approach was appealing to you .
I do n't see the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems you would be using Seamonkey instead of FIrefox if this sort of all-in-one approach was appealing to you.
I don't see the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552726</id>
	<title>Yet another hole in my head!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you get a free purple pony on facebook too..... along with exclusive offers.....and a new credit report too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you get a free purple pony on facebook too..... along with exclusive offers.....and a new credit report too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you get a free purple pony on facebook too..... along with exclusive offers.....and a new credit report too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552784</id>
	<title>I want good export options</title>
	<author>Killjoy\_NL</author>
	<datestamp>1269084780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all well and good, but I want good export options too.<br>I use Mozilla and Thunderbird at home, but I would love an easy option to export it to an Outlook format that I could problemlessly import in Outlook in a good format.<br>The place where I work (and probably the next place where I work) demands this kind of data interoperability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all well and good , but I want good export options too.I use Mozilla and Thunderbird at home , but I would love an easy option to export it to an Outlook format that I could problemlessly import in Outlook in a good format.The place where I work ( and probably the next place where I work ) demands this kind of data interoperability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all well and good, but I want good export options too.I use Mozilla and Thunderbird at home, but I would love an easy option to export it to an Outlook format that I could problemlessly import in Outlook in a good format.The place where I work (and probably the next place where I work) demands this kind of data interoperability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553862</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269092760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you give your email password to some website "to import your contacts", you are the security gap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you give your email password to some website " to import your contacts " , you are the security gap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you give your email password to some website "to import your contacts", you are the security gap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553138</id>
	<title>If it's better than Gmail</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1269086880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's better than Gmail, I'll try it. I know, I sleep with the devil. But she's a pretty woman, does the things I like, doesn't seem to gossip and is quite taciturn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's better than Gmail , I 'll try it .
I know , I sleep with the devil .
But she 's a pretty woman , does the things I like , does n't seem to gossip and is quite taciturn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's better than Gmail, I'll try it.
I know, I sleep with the devil.
But she's a pretty woman, does the things I like, doesn't seem to gossip and is quite taciturn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31557766</id>
	<title>Re:Please fix Firefox 3.6 on Windows first!</title>
	<author>Crimsonjade</author>
	<datestamp>1269188520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So wish I had mod points.  +1 Funny</htmltext>
<tokenext>So wish I had mod points .
+ 1 Funny</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wish I had mod points.
+1 Funny</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104</id>
	<title>History repeats itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269086700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on Earth are they trying to turn Firefox into the Mozilla Application Suite!?  There's a reason that failed, and Firefox, originally just an afterthought to quiet those complaining about Mozilla's bloat, won out.</p><p>What is wrong with "do one thing and do it well?"</p><p>In any case, I look forward to the next project, which spins off a browser from the Firefox project for people who just want a browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on Earth are they trying to turn Firefox into the Mozilla Application Suite ! ?
There 's a reason that failed , and Firefox , originally just an afterthought to quiet those complaining about Mozilla 's bloat , won out.What is wrong with " do one thing and do it well ?
" In any case , I look forward to the next project , which spins off a browser from the Firefox project for people who just want a browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on Earth are they trying to turn Firefox into the Mozilla Application Suite!?
There's a reason that failed, and Firefox, originally just an afterthought to quiet those complaining about Mozilla's bloat, won out.What is wrong with "do one thing and do it well?
"In any case, I look forward to the next project, which spins off a browser from the Firefox project for people who just want a browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553218</id>
	<title>Re:History repeats itself</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1269087300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What is wrong with "do one thing and do it well?"</p></div></blockquote><p>
Absolutely nothing.  That's an integral part of the philosophy behind the design of Unix and Unix-like operating systems.  I believe it to be a very sound idea, which is why I use a Unix-like OS.  Additionally, I think the KISS principle is especially important in a Web browser, as browsers are one of the main attack vectors for compromised computers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is wrong with " do one thing and do it well ?
" Absolutely nothing .
That 's an integral part of the philosophy behind the design of Unix and Unix-like operating systems .
I believe it to be a very sound idea , which is why I use a Unix-like OS .
Additionally , I think the KISS principle is especially important in a Web browser , as browsers are one of the main attack vectors for compromised computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is wrong with "do one thing and do it well?
"
Absolutely nothing.
That's an integral part of the philosophy behind the design of Unix and Unix-like operating systems.
I believe it to be a very sound idea, which is why I use a Unix-like OS.
Additionally, I think the KISS principle is especially important in a Web browser, as browsers are one of the main attack vectors for compromised computers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31556968</id>
	<title>PortableContacts.net and security</title>
	<author>chris-chittleborough</author>
	<datestamp>1269180240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good news: web pages do require approval (through a permission dialog) to access address books. The extension's author <a href="http://mozillalabs.com/blog/2010/03/contacts-in-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-10645" title="mozillalabs.com">says</a> [mozillalabs.com]:<blockquote><div><p>[T]here are two APIs. The internal &ldquo;importer&rdquo; API, which can only be accessed by [Firefox] extensions, allows you to perform arbitrary network and OS-level operations to get information into the system. The external &ldquo;content&rdquo; API, which can be accessed by any web page, allows you to request access to contact data (and then starts the &ldquo;permission&rdquo; dialog, where the user can choose what access to grant).</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
<a href="http://portablecontacts.net/" title="portablecontacts.net">This website</a> [portablecontacts.net] seems to be the place to find out more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good news : web pages do require approval ( through a permission dialog ) to access address books .
The extension 's author says [ mozillalabs.com ] : [ T ] here are two APIs .
The internal    importer    API , which can only be accessed by [ Firefox ] extensions , allows you to perform arbitrary network and OS-level operations to get information into the system .
The external    content    API , which can be accessed by any web page , allows you to request access to contact data ( and then starts the    permission    dialog , where the user can choose what access to grant ) .
This website [ portablecontacts.net ] seems to be the place to find out more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good news: web pages do require approval (through a permission dialog) to access address books.
The extension's author says [mozillalabs.com]:[T]here are two APIs.
The internal “importer” API, which can only be accessed by [Firefox] extensions, allows you to perform arbitrary network and OS-level operations to get information into the system.
The external “content” API, which can be accessed by any web page, allows you to request access to contact data (and then starts the “permission” dialog, where the user can choose what access to grant).
This website [portablecontacts.net] seems to be the place to find out more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552658</id>
	<title>Great, another address book to get F*$ked up sync</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269083820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that is all I need... yet another address book that screws up all my contact lists when it does a sync with the 17 other address books I have......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that is all I need... yet another address book that screws up all my contact lists when it does a sync with the 17 other address books I have..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that is all I need... yet another address book that screws up all my contact lists when it does a sync with the 17 other address books I have......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553024</id>
	<title>Get your jacket and skis, cause we have to jump...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269086400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I love Firefox&rsquo;s add-ons and all. It&rsquo;s great for web development.</p><p>But Firefox now officially has jumped the shark.</p><p>I&rsquo;ll check out Opera. I&rsquo;ve head they support user-supplied extensions too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I love Firefox    s add-ons and all .
It    s great for web development.But Firefox now officially has jumped the shark.I    ll check out Opera .
I    ve head they support user-supplied extensions too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I love Firefox’s add-ons and all.
It’s great for web development.But Firefox now officially has jumped the shark.I’ll check out Opera.
I’ve head they support user-supplied extensions too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31556430</id>
	<title>Address Book in Firefox?</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1269172440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? Mozilla, what flavour crack are you guys smoking this month?</p><p>There's already plenty of address book add-ons for Firefox and Mozilla, we don't need you guys adding another one to Firefox that will allow web sites to harvest contact info. If you want to do something address book-like, why don't you fix-up your LDAP support in Thunderbird so that it can actually create and update LDAP contacts - like you were supposed to have done in Thunderbird 2!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
Mozilla , what flavour crack are you guys smoking this month ? There 's already plenty of address book add-ons for Firefox and Mozilla , we do n't need you guys adding another one to Firefox that will allow web sites to harvest contact info .
If you want to do something address book-like , why do n't you fix-up your LDAP support in Thunderbird so that it can actually create and update LDAP contacts - like you were supposed to have done in Thunderbird 2 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
Mozilla, what flavour crack are you guys smoking this month?There's already plenty of address book add-ons for Firefox and Mozilla, we don't need you guys adding another one to Firefox that will allow web sites to harvest contact info.
If you want to do something address book-like, why don't you fix-up your LDAP support in Thunderbird so that it can actually create and update LDAP contacts - like you were supposed to have done in Thunderbird 2!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554622</id>
	<title>Re:Danger... keep that door locked.</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1269099960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that spam has been around for <a href="http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamreact.html" title="templetons.com" rel="nofollow">32 years now</a> [templetons.com], and with state of the art classifiers, spam really isn't that much of a problem for users.  Most "spam" that gets delivered is actually from sites that the user has dealt with.  Buy baseball tickets, and it seems like MLB emails you every two weeks.  Buy concert tickets online, and you're autosubscribed to a marketing mailing.</p><p>While spam may be problem for network administrators, as a user, I simply don't care.  It's literally not my problem.</p><p>Honestly.  Even my parents don't get random spam and phishing attacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that spam has been around for 32 years now [ templetons.com ] , and with state of the art classifiers , spam really is n't that much of a problem for users .
Most " spam " that gets delivered is actually from sites that the user has dealt with .
Buy baseball tickets , and it seems like MLB emails you every two weeks .
Buy concert tickets online , and you 're autosubscribed to a marketing mailing.While spam may be problem for network administrators , as a user , I simply do n't care .
It 's literally not my problem.Honestly .
Even my parents do n't get random spam and phishing attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that spam has been around for 32 years now [templetons.com], and with state of the art classifiers, spam really isn't that much of a problem for users.
Most "spam" that gets delivered is actually from sites that the user has dealt with.
Buy baseball tickets, and it seems like MLB emails you every two weeks.
Buy concert tickets online, and you're autosubscribed to a marketing mailing.While spam may be problem for network administrators, as a user, I simply don't care.
It's literally not my problem.Honestly.
Even my parents don't get random spam and phishing attacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552808</id>
	<title>Re:Danger... keep that door locked.</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1269084900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a reason why we don't keep address books in openly-readable unencrypted XML files.</p></div><p>smithm@michael:~/.sylpheed-2.0$ cat addrbook-000001.xml</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reason why we do n't keep address books in openly-readable unencrypted XML files.smithm @ michael : ~ /.sylpheed-2.0 $ cat addrbook-000001.xml</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reason why we don't keep address books in openly-readable unencrypted XML files.smithm@michael:~/.sylpheed-2.0$ cat addrbook-000001.xml
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552820</id>
	<title>No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269084960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't personally see the need for this. I've been using Firefox on OS X for several years, and can't think of a single time when I've thought "gee, it'd be nice if only (use case mentioned in the article)". It did mention giving Gmail access to my OS X address book, but hey - I've been able to do that already for quite some time now, with no web browser intermediary required.</p><p>Additionally, given (what I perceive as) Mozilla's bad track record for finishing what they start when it comes to "added value" functionality - I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to be available and usable. Heck, Firefox <i>still</i> doesn't use my secure keychain to store passwords; I'd say that'd be infinitely more useful than this. Fortunately there's now a third-party extension that fills this particular need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't personally see the need for this .
I 've been using Firefox on OS X for several years , and ca n't think of a single time when I 've thought " gee , it 'd be nice if only ( use case mentioned in the article ) " .
It did mention giving Gmail access to my OS X address book , but hey - I 've been able to do that already for quite some time now , with no web browser intermediary required.Additionally , given ( what I perceive as ) Mozilla 's bad track record for finishing what they start when it comes to " added value " functionality - I would n't hold my breath waiting for this to be available and usable .
Heck , Firefox still does n't use my secure keychain to store passwords ; I 'd say that 'd be infinitely more useful than this .
Fortunately there 's now a third-party extension that fills this particular need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't personally see the need for this.
I've been using Firefox on OS X for several years, and can't think of a single time when I've thought "gee, it'd be nice if only (use case mentioned in the article)".
It did mention giving Gmail access to my OS X address book, but hey - I've been able to do that already for quite some time now, with no web browser intermediary required.Additionally, given (what I perceive as) Mozilla's bad track record for finishing what they start when it comes to "added value" functionality - I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to be available and usable.
Heck, Firefox still doesn't use my secure keychain to store passwords; I'd say that'd be infinitely more useful than this.
Fortunately there's now a third-party extension that fills this particular need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31556942</id>
	<title>Forget an Address Book in Firefox</title>
	<author>rshol</author>
	<datestamp>1269179880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's stupid.

But, give us an address book in Thunderbird that will sync seamlessly with Gmail and I'd be deliriously happy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's stupid .
But , give us an address book in Thunderbird that will sync seamlessly with Gmail and I 'd be deliriously happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's stupid.
But, give us an address book in Thunderbird that will sync seamlessly with Gmail and I'd be deliriously happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736</id>
	<title>Um, why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269084480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, when I'm filling out a web form I'm *never* putting somebody else's information into it -- it's always my own.  Second of all... actually, there is no second of all.  When I'm using Firefox for email, it's just my front-end to GMail or other webmail which already has an address book.  I'm not a big fan of the "well, I don't see a need therefore nobody should" school of thought; so I'd love to hear about use cases where this functionality is actually meeting some need not already  handled more appropriately elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , when I 'm filling out a web form I 'm * never * putting somebody else 's information into it -- it 's always my own .
Second of all... actually , there is no second of all .
When I 'm using Firefox for email , it 's just my front-end to GMail or other webmail which already has an address book .
I 'm not a big fan of the " well , I do n't see a need therefore nobody should " school of thought ; so I 'd love to hear about use cases where this functionality is actually meeting some need not already handled more appropriately elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, when I'm filling out a web form I'm *never* putting somebody else's information into it -- it's always my own.
Second of all... actually, there is no second of all.
When I'm using Firefox for email, it's just my front-end to GMail or other webmail which already has an address book.
I'm not a big fan of the "well, I don't see a need therefore nobody should" school of thought; so I'd love to hear about use cases where this functionality is actually meeting some need not already  handled more appropriately elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31560896</id>
	<title>Re:History repeats itself</title>
	<author>DirePickle</author>
	<datestamp>1269170820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know, I know! They can call it Phoenix, like it's rising from the ashes of Firefox!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , I know !
They can call it Phoenix , like it 's rising from the ashes of Firefox !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, I know!
They can call it Phoenix, like it's rising from the ashes of Firefox!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554264</id>
	<title>We already have Thunderbird why this?</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1269096180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't think of any reason to include this into a web browser. System-wide, I use Address Book (I'm on a Mac). For those on Windows, Thunderbird has an integrated address book.<br> <br>Am I missing something?<br> <br>Oh, and Mozilla, DON'T SCREW UP THIS BROWSER kthksbye</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of any reason to include this into a web browser .
System-wide , I use Address Book ( I 'm on a Mac ) .
For those on Windows , Thunderbird has an integrated address book .
Am I missing something ?
Oh , and Mozilla , DO N'T SCREW UP THIS BROWSER kthksbye</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of any reason to include this into a web browser.
System-wide, I use Address Book (I'm on a Mac).
For those on Windows, Thunderbird has an integrated address book.
Am I missing something?
Oh, and Mozilla, DON'T SCREW UP THIS BROWSER kthksbye</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554240</id>
	<title>Re:Please fix Firefox 3.6 on Windows first!</title>
	<author>TheReal\_sabret00the</author>
	<datestamp>1269096000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're essentially asking the Concept division to pick up tools and work on current production models. Mozilla Labs is all about experimenting with the future of the internet and the needs of its users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're essentially asking the Concept division to pick up tools and work on current production models .
Mozilla Labs is all about experimenting with the future of the internet and the needs of its users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're essentially asking the Concept division to pick up tools and work on current production models.
Mozilla Labs is all about experimenting with the future of the internet and the needs of its users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553514</id>
	<title>Re:History repeats itself</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1269089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Phoenix was mostly about cleaning up the XPFE mess:</p><p><a href="http://home.kairo.at/blog/2007-05/old\_xpfe\_may\_die\_soon" title="kairo.at" rel="nofollow">http://home.kairo.at/blog/2007-05/old\_xpfe\_may\_die\_soon</a> [kairo.at]</p><p>They also thought that a user focused browser would be a more successful product than a developer driven internet application suite. And then we found out they were right. It certainly wasn't an afterthought to the people doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Phoenix was mostly about cleaning up the XPFE mess : http : //home.kairo.at/blog/2007-05/old \ _xpfe \ _may \ _die \ _soon [ kairo.at ] They also thought that a user focused browser would be a more successful product than a developer driven internet application suite .
And then we found out they were right .
It certainly was n't an afterthought to the people doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Phoenix was mostly about cleaning up the XPFE mess:http://home.kairo.at/blog/2007-05/old\_xpfe\_may\_die\_soon [kairo.at]They also thought that a user focused browser would be a more successful product than a developer driven internet application suite.
And then we found out they were right.
It certainly wasn't an afterthought to the people doing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1269086100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of "social networking" websites ask for your password to your email so they can import your contacts.  If the browser could (semi-)automagically give it that info, you'd close a huge security gap...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of " social networking " websites ask for your password to your email so they can import your contacts .
If the browser could ( semi- ) automagically give it that info , you 'd close a huge security gap.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of "social networking" websites ask for your password to your email so they can import your contacts.
If the browser could (semi-)automagically give it that info, you'd close a huge security gap...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500</id>
	<title>Danger... keep that door locked.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269082620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a reason why we don't keep address books in openly-readable unencrypted XML files.</p><p>Mix an easily-read address book with a small bit of untrusted code, and you've got a worm with the capability of sending victim-specific e-mail. Upload that list to a server, and you've just given your favorite people the gift of spam. Microsoft learned this the hard way when most users were using Outlook Express and Windows Address Book and both of them had wide-open for scripting interfaces, so that lead to a mess. We don't use those things anymore.</p><p>Please... let's make sure this requires a stored-password check so that we're sure only apps the user trusts to read the address book. All of the cool web apps are doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reason why we do n't keep address books in openly-readable unencrypted XML files.Mix an easily-read address book with a small bit of untrusted code , and you 've got a worm with the capability of sending victim-specific e-mail .
Upload that list to a server , and you 've just given your favorite people the gift of spam .
Microsoft learned this the hard way when most users were using Outlook Express and Windows Address Book and both of them had wide-open for scripting interfaces , so that lead to a mess .
We do n't use those things anymore.Please... let 's make sure this requires a stored-password check so that we 're sure only apps the user trusts to read the address book .
All of the cool web apps are doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reason why we don't keep address books in openly-readable unencrypted XML files.Mix an easily-read address book with a small bit of untrusted code, and you've got a worm with the capability of sending victim-specific e-mail.
Upload that list to a server, and you've just given your favorite people the gift of spam.
Microsoft learned this the hard way when most users were using Outlook Express and Windows Address Book and both of them had wide-open for scripting interfaces, so that lead to a mess.
We don't use those things anymore.Please... let's make sure this requires a stored-password check so that we're sure only apps the user trusts to read the address book.
All of the cool web apps are doing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554736</id>
	<title>Re:Seamonkey</title>
	<author>MacDork</author>
	<datestamp>1269101280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Netscape Communicator died for a reason.  It was a slow, bloated, 'all-in-one' package of crap. I'd prefer to see them working on more important things, like SVG animation.  They're way behind webkit and presto on that one.  HTML5 != address books.  Firefox team needs to maintain focus on their core product... their rendering engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Netscape Communicator died for a reason .
It was a slow , bloated , 'all-in-one ' package of crap .
I 'd prefer to see them working on more important things , like SVG animation .
They 're way behind webkit and presto on that one .
HTML5 ! = address books .
Firefox team needs to maintain focus on their core product... their rendering engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Netscape Communicator died for a reason.
It was a slow, bloated, 'all-in-one' package of crap.
I'd prefer to see them working on more important things, like SVG animation.
They're way behind webkit and presto on that one.
HTML5 != address books.
Firefox team needs to maintain focus on their core product... their rendering engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31560926</id>
	<title>Re:History repeats itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269170940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's called Chrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's called Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's called Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553132</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1269086880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that I always say <b>NO GODDAMNIT NO NO NO NO!</b> to those requests because I don't want some idiot social networking fuckhead marketer spamming all my contacts, saying "we'll just do it automagically" fills me with terror.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that I always say NO GODDAMNIT NO NO NO NO !
to those requests because I do n't want some idiot social networking fuckhead marketer spamming all my contacts , saying " we 'll just do it automagically " fills me with terror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that I always say NO GODDAMNIT NO NO NO NO!
to those requests because I don't want some idiot social networking fuckhead marketer spamming all my contacts, saying "we'll just do it automagically" fills me with terror.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553160</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1269087060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A lot of "social networking" websites ask for your password to your email so they can import your contacts.  If the browser could (semi-)automagically give it that info, you'd close a huge security gap...</p></div><p>I'm assuming you refer to Web-based e-mail services like Gmail.  I have no e-mail accounts like this, but I otherwise don't know what you mean.  For example, the password to my POP3 e-mail account would not contain any of my contacts.  Those are stored in my local e-mail client.  I'm not so sure about IMAP, but POP3 remains much more common in either case.
<br> <br>
I also don't use any social networking sites like Facebook or Myspace, so I am wondering if it is common for them to function as HTTP-to-SMTP gateways.  If that's not commonplace, then what is their legitimate reason for storing your list of contacts?  If you use a social networking site and want to readily access the pages of other users on that service, wouldn't standard browser bookmarks be better suited for this task?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of " social networking " websites ask for your password to your email so they can import your contacts .
If the browser could ( semi- ) automagically give it that info , you 'd close a huge security gap...I 'm assuming you refer to Web-based e-mail services like Gmail .
I have no e-mail accounts like this , but I otherwise do n't know what you mean .
For example , the password to my POP3 e-mail account would not contain any of my contacts .
Those are stored in my local e-mail client .
I 'm not so sure about IMAP , but POP3 remains much more common in either case .
I also do n't use any social networking sites like Facebook or Myspace , so I am wondering if it is common for them to function as HTTP-to-SMTP gateways .
If that 's not commonplace , then what is their legitimate reason for storing your list of contacts ?
If you use a social networking site and want to readily access the pages of other users on that service , would n't standard browser bookmarks be better suited for this task ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of "social networking" websites ask for your password to your email so they can import your contacts.
If the browser could (semi-)automagically give it that info, you'd close a huge security gap...I'm assuming you refer to Web-based e-mail services like Gmail.
I have no e-mail accounts like this, but I otherwise don't know what you mean.
For example, the password to my POP3 e-mail account would not contain any of my contacts.
Those are stored in my local e-mail client.
I'm not so sure about IMAP, but POP3 remains much more common in either case.
I also don't use any social networking sites like Facebook or Myspace, so I am wondering if it is common for them to function as HTTP-to-SMTP gateways.
If that's not commonplace, then what is their legitimate reason for storing your list of contacts?
If you use a social networking site and want to readily access the pages of other users on that service, wouldn't standard browser bookmarks be better suited for this task?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31556968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31560926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31560896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31568242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1949203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31557766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1949203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1949203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1949203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31556968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1949203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1949203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31557766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1949203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1949203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31554264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1949203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31552978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31568242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1949203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31560896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31560926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1949203.31553218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
