<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_21_1515230</id>
	<title>Bad BitDefender Update Clobbers Windows PCs</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269186960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>alphadogg writes <i>"Users of the BitDefender antivirus software started flooding the company's support forums Saturday, apparently after a faulty antivirus update <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032010-bad-bitdefender-update-clobbers-windows.html">caused 64-bit Windows machines to stop working</a>. The company <a href="http://www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#638">acknowledged the issue in a note</a> explaining the problem.  'Due to a recent update it is possible that BitDefender detects several Windows and BitDefender files as infected with Trojan.FakeAlert.5,' the company said. The acknowledgment came after BitDefender users had logged hundreds of posts on the topic. Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>alphadogg writes " Users of the BitDefender antivirus software started flooding the company 's support forums Saturday , apparently after a faulty antivirus update caused 64-bit Windows machines to stop working .
The company acknowledged the issue in a note explaining the problem .
'Due to a recent update it is possible that BitDefender detects several Windows and BitDefender files as infected with Trojan.FakeAlert.5, ' the company said .
The acknowledgment came after BitDefender users had logged hundreds of posts on the topic .
Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alphadogg writes "Users of the BitDefender antivirus software started flooding the company's support forums Saturday, apparently after a faulty antivirus update caused 64-bit Windows machines to stop working.
The company acknowledged the issue in a note explaining the problem.
'Due to a recent update it is possible that BitDefender detects several Windows and BitDefender files as infected with Trojan.FakeAlert.5,' the company said.
The acknowledgment came after BitDefender users had logged hundreds of posts on the topic.
Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558026</id>
	<title>What does this say about "some" windows users?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA: "Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems."</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: "Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558002</id>
	<title>Come on guys....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had this happen to me yesterday, I though I got hit with a real virus, so I reformatted.  At first I could not log in with my password, so I retrieved that with barts PE, then my desktop showed no installed icons or anything.  It was bizzarre. wtf</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had this happen to me yesterday , I though I got hit with a real virus , so I reformatted .
At first I could not log in with my password , so I retrieved that with barts PE , then my desktop showed no installed icons or anything .
It was bizzarre .
wtf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had this happen to me yesterday, I though I got hit with a real virus, so I reformatted.
At first I could not log in with my password, so I retrieved that with barts PE, then my desktop showed no installed icons or anything.
It was bizzarre.
wtf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559036</id>
	<title>Wait..!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269200820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a virus with the same heuristics as kernel32.dll. I think<br>it will run ok. (32 bit only)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a virus with the same heuristics as kernel32.dll .
I thinkit will run ok. ( 32 bit only )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a virus with the same heuristics as kernel32.dll.
I thinkit will run ok. (32 bit only)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31563810</id>
	<title>Re:How many times does this happen?</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1269194460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there were sufficient motivation, people would write scripts to wget ubuntu rootkits and sudo make install them, and it would be posted to an ubuntu wiki, and thousands of people would end up on the ubuntuforums compliaining about viruses and how they thought ubuntu was immune.<br> <br>

This keeps coming up on slashdot, linux is not some magical barrier to viruses.  Windows has its share of blame for crappy security, but many viruses are from users downloading stuff-- and the ones that ARENT (ie, most of them now) are from 3rd party vulnerabilities-- ie, adobe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were sufficient motivation , people would write scripts to wget ubuntu rootkits and sudo make install them , and it would be posted to an ubuntu wiki , and thousands of people would end up on the ubuntuforums compliaining about viruses and how they thought ubuntu was immune .
This keeps coming up on slashdot , linux is not some magical barrier to viruses .
Windows has its share of blame for crappy security , but many viruses are from users downloading stuff-- and the ones that ARENT ( ie , most of them now ) are from 3rd party vulnerabilities-- ie , adobe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were sufficient motivation, people would write scripts to wget ubuntu rootkits and sudo make install them, and it would be posted to an ubuntu wiki, and thousands of people would end up on the ubuntuforums compliaining about viruses and how they thought ubuntu was immune.
This keeps coming up on slashdot, linux is not some magical barrier to viruses.
Windows has its share of blame for crappy security, but many viruses are from users downloading stuff-- and the ones that ARENT (ie, most of them now) are from 3rd party vulnerabilities-- ie, adobe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558838</id>
	<title>Re:I've had similar with COMODO</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1269199200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, the <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1590042&amp;cid=31558268" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">irony!</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , the irony !
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, the irony!
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558270</id>
	<title>Re:what incompetent boobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269193860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that simple in reality.  Obviously you can test RTM, service packs, etc, but system files can also be updated in individual security patches.  It's simply not feasible to test every single security patch for every single supported system and platform, at least not if you want timely definition updates.  Perhaps in the future Microsoft could make all released binaries available for AV vendors to regression test against.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that simple in reality .
Obviously you can test RTM , service packs , etc , but system files can also be updated in individual security patches .
It 's simply not feasible to test every single security patch for every single supported system and platform , at least not if you want timely definition updates .
Perhaps in the future Microsoft could make all released binaries available for AV vendors to regression test against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that simple in reality.
Obviously you can test RTM, service packs, etc, but system files can also be updated in individual security patches.
It's simply not feasible to test every single security patch for every single supported system and platform, at least not if you want timely definition updates.
Perhaps in the future Microsoft could make all released binaries available for AV vendors to regression test against.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31572408</id>
	<title>Re:How Appropriate</title>
	<author>RalucaD</author>
	<datestamp>1269284520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On behalf of BitDefender, we are very sorry for the problems that our update may have caused.  We were able to revert the bad update quickly and only those who performed the update in that short window were affected.<br>BitDefender is a trusted security software provider for nearly 10 years. Over these years we have only provide the most secured solutions in the market and we want to assure everyone that this is an isolated case.<br>We have also been providing information to our users via support articles that are updated regularly as we implement solutions for the various customer configurations that are brought to our attention.<br>Home users will find solutions here:<br><br>www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#638<br><br>BitDefender Business Client users will find solutions here:<br><br>www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#643<br><br>BitDefender Security for File Servers users will find solutions here:<br><br>www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#642<br><br>For those who are not able to find a solution via the support articles, we are advising them to contact our support team directly via email, chat, phone or forum at:<br><br>www.bitdefender.com/site/Main/contactEmail/ for home users<br><br>Thank you very much for your understanding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On behalf of BitDefender , we are very sorry for the problems that our update may have caused .
We were able to revert the bad update quickly and only those who performed the update in that short window were affected.BitDefender is a trusted security software provider for nearly 10 years .
Over these years we have only provide the most secured solutions in the market and we want to assure everyone that this is an isolated case.We have also been providing information to our users via support articles that are updated regularly as we implement solutions for the various customer configurations that are brought to our attention.Home users will find solutions here : www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/ # 638BitDefender Business Client users will find solutions here : www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/ # 643BitDefender Security for File Servers users will find solutions here : www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/ # 642For those who are not able to find a solution via the support articles , we are advising them to contact our support team directly via email , chat , phone or forum at : www.bitdefender.com/site/Main/contactEmail/ for home usersThank you very much for your understanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On behalf of BitDefender, we are very sorry for the problems that our update may have caused.
We were able to revert the bad update quickly and only those who performed the update in that short window were affected.BitDefender is a trusted security software provider for nearly 10 years.
Over these years we have only provide the most secured solutions in the market and we want to assure everyone that this is an isolated case.We have also been providing information to our users via support articles that are updated regularly as we implement solutions for the various customer configurations that are brought to our attention.Home users will find solutions here:www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#638BitDefender Business Client users will find solutions here:www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#643BitDefender Security for File Servers users will find solutions here:www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#642For those who are not able to find a solution via the support articles, we are advising them to contact our support team directly via email, chat, phone or forum at:www.bitdefender.com/site/Main/contactEmail/ for home usersThank you very much for your understanding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564146</id>
	<title>Re:How many times does this happen?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269199440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to tell me of one? Hint: "Linux" is the wrong answer.</p><p>Any OS is easy to subvert and hijack as long as the user grants root/admin/whatevertheheadhonchoiscalled access to any moronic program that zips about and refuses to run without. It's called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing\_pigs" title="wikipedia.org">Dancing pig problem</a> [wikipedia.org]. While I can agree that it is exceptionally bad in Windows, where programs like games routinely require admin privileges to install (and quite often to run, too), this is not to blame on the OS itself. You could get the same kind of crappy software in Linux or any other system deemed "secure" when third party software writers insist in messing with system related files and content. I have no idea why users put up with it, but as long as they do, software writers will continue to put ease of code generation before security. And users put up with it because they do not understand the security implications, but they do understand that to run their shiny new game that they absolutely MUST have, they have to drop any semblance of security on their box. So they will. Let the pigs dance!</p><p>So please stop running the treadmill of "use a more secure system". Most contemporary infections are not due to a faulty OS, they rely on social engineering and crappy browsers and their even crappier plugins. Exactly the same would happen if 90\% of the world would run Linux instead of Windows, because the malware writers would simply go after them instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to tell me of one ?
Hint : " Linux " is the wrong answer.Any OS is easy to subvert and hijack as long as the user grants root/admin/whatevertheheadhonchoiscalled access to any moronic program that zips about and refuses to run without .
It 's called the Dancing pig problem [ wikipedia.org ] .
While I can agree that it is exceptionally bad in Windows , where programs like games routinely require admin privileges to install ( and quite often to run , too ) , this is not to blame on the OS itself .
You could get the same kind of crappy software in Linux or any other system deemed " secure " when third party software writers insist in messing with system related files and content .
I have no idea why users put up with it , but as long as they do , software writers will continue to put ease of code generation before security .
And users put up with it because they do not understand the security implications , but they do understand that to run their shiny new game that they absolutely MUST have , they have to drop any semblance of security on their box .
So they will .
Let the pigs dance ! So please stop running the treadmill of " use a more secure system " .
Most contemporary infections are not due to a faulty OS , they rely on social engineering and crappy browsers and their even crappier plugins .
Exactly the same would happen if 90 \ % of the world would run Linux instead of Windows , because the malware writers would simply go after them instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to tell me of one?
Hint: "Linux" is the wrong answer.Any OS is easy to subvert and hijack as long as the user grants root/admin/whatevertheheadhonchoiscalled access to any moronic program that zips about and refuses to run without.
It's called the Dancing pig problem [wikipedia.org].
While I can agree that it is exceptionally bad in Windows, where programs like games routinely require admin privileges to install (and quite often to run, too), this is not to blame on the OS itself.
You could get the same kind of crappy software in Linux or any other system deemed "secure" when third party software writers insist in messing with system related files and content.
I have no idea why users put up with it, but as long as they do, software writers will continue to put ease of code generation before security.
And users put up with it because they do not understand the security implications, but they do understand that to run their shiny new game that they absolutely MUST have, they have to drop any semblance of security on their box.
So they will.
Let the pigs dance!So please stop running the treadmill of "use a more secure system".
Most contemporary infections are not due to a faulty OS, they rely on social engineering and crappy browsers and their even crappier plugins.
Exactly the same would happen if 90\% of the world would run Linux instead of Windows, because the malware writers would simply go after them instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559482</id>
	<title>Re:I've had similar with COMODO</title>
	<author>Cl1mh4224rd</author>
	<datestamp>1269204540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was another definition update for Comodo Antivirus (around the middle of last year, I think) that caused the CPU to peg at 100\% usage on Windows XP 32-bit and possibly other versions of Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was another definition update for Comodo Antivirus ( around the middle of last year , I think ) that caused the CPU to peg at 100 \ % usage on Windows XP 32-bit and possibly other versions of Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was another definition update for Comodo Antivirus (around the middle of last year, I think) that caused the CPU to peg at 100\% usage on Windows XP 32-bit and possibly other versions of Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558000</id>
	<title>So secure, NOTHING will run</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its a new security paradigm.  The newly locked down computer will not run anything, and therefore no virii, malware, bots, or solitaire, will run.  Truly they've created the "most secure antivirus ever".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a new security paradigm .
The newly locked down computer will not run anything , and therefore no virii , malware , bots , or solitaire , will run .
Truly they 've created the " most secure antivirus ever " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a new security paradigm.
The newly locked down computer will not run anything, and therefore no virii, malware, bots, or solitaire, will run.
Truly they've created the "most secure antivirus ever".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31562128</id>
	<title>BitDefender was right</title>
	<author>Lost Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1269180240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows IS the virus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows IS the virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows IS the virus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559570</id>
	<title>The cure is worse than the disease</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1269205080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things that precipitated my move to Linux was the way Kaspersky -- at the time, the top-rated security suite -- was shutting down my LAN. There were lots of posts on the official forums complaining about the problem, a handful of useless responses from users guessing at which part of the suite might be the source of the problem, and about which of the undocumented menu options might disable that part of the suite, and one short, incomprehensible message from one of the developers, suggesting they were looking into the problem, from several months before.</p><p>My experience with security software for Windows is that they bog down the operating system, disable basic features of the operating system without warning, and cause frequent crashes -- the very problems that they warn malicious software may cause. Simply put, malicious software *may* cause problems for Windows, but most third-party security software *will*.</p><p>To Microsoft's credit, they finally sealed some of the fundamental security holes with Vista and Windows 7, and they offer a decent security suite for free, so there's really no longer any reason to buy one of these wretched third-party security suites.</p><p>On the whole, though, you'll still get better security by switching to Linux, or at least Mac OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things that precipitated my move to Linux was the way Kaspersky -- at the time , the top-rated security suite -- was shutting down my LAN .
There were lots of posts on the official forums complaining about the problem , a handful of useless responses from users guessing at which part of the suite might be the source of the problem , and about which of the undocumented menu options might disable that part of the suite , and one short , incomprehensible message from one of the developers , suggesting they were looking into the problem , from several months before.My experience with security software for Windows is that they bog down the operating system , disable basic features of the operating system without warning , and cause frequent crashes -- the very problems that they warn malicious software may cause .
Simply put , malicious software * may * cause problems for Windows , but most third-party security software * will * .To Microsoft 's credit , they finally sealed some of the fundamental security holes with Vista and Windows 7 , and they offer a decent security suite for free , so there 's really no longer any reason to buy one of these wretched third-party security suites.On the whole , though , you 'll still get better security by switching to Linux , or at least Mac OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things that precipitated my move to Linux was the way Kaspersky -- at the time, the top-rated security suite -- was shutting down my LAN.
There were lots of posts on the official forums complaining about the problem, a handful of useless responses from users guessing at which part of the suite might be the source of the problem, and about which of the undocumented menu options might disable that part of the suite, and one short, incomprehensible message from one of the developers, suggesting they were looking into the problem, from several months before.My experience with security software for Windows is that they bog down the operating system, disable basic features of the operating system without warning, and cause frequent crashes -- the very problems that they warn malicious software may cause.
Simply put, malicious software *may* cause problems for Windows, but most third-party security software *will*.To Microsoft's credit, they finally sealed some of the fundamental security holes with Vista and Windows 7, and they offer a decent security suite for free, so there's really no longer any reason to buy one of these wretched third-party security suites.On the whole, though, you'll still get better security by switching to Linux, or at least Mac OS X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558154</id>
	<title>I see a market for a new product:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269192720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anticlobber software. To protect your computer against misbehaving antivirus software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anticlobber software .
To protect your computer against misbehaving antivirus software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anticlobber software.
To protect your computer against misbehaving antivirus software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559106</id>
	<title>Re:Quick</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1269201420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I know this is Slashdot and we like bashing Microsoft but... what the hell?</p><p>Don't you mean, "sent BitDefender a 64-bit version of Vista and Windows 7?" Or are you making a joke going way over my head?</p><p>What does Microsoft have to do with a bug in BitDefender?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I know this is Slashdot and we like bashing Microsoft but... what the hell ? Do n't you mean , " sent BitDefender a 64-bit version of Vista and Windows 7 ?
" Or are you making a joke going way over my head ? What does Microsoft have to do with a bug in BitDefender ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I know this is Slashdot and we like bashing Microsoft but... what the hell?Don't you mean, "sent BitDefender a 64-bit version of Vista and Windows 7?
" Or are you making a joke going way over my head?What does Microsoft have to do with a bug in BitDefender?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558330</id>
	<title>Re:Quick</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1269194460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Quick, someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7.</p></div><p>BitDefender and Windows Defender are two different things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick , someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7.BitDefender and Windows Defender are two different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick, someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7.BitDefender and Windows Defender are two different things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557960</id>
	<title>PWN?</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1269190800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PWN.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PWN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PWN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558232</id>
	<title>Trusting your AV too far...</title>
	<author>runward</author>
	<datestamp>1269193500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This happened to me, too... bitdefender would flag nearly any file, and it first flagged a file that I had just updated, so I was genuinely concerned.  The next file is flagged, however, was usbstor.sys, so I knew the AV was probably wrong. </p><p>Some people were running virus scans... tens of thousands of false detection, and all of the files were quarantined or deleted... it was a really bad situation for many.  I'm not sure how non-technical users fared.</p><p>


I use bitdefender on my computer only - I like the aggressive detection capabilities and reporting options.  However, no one else in my house wants to know what their AV is doing - they just want it to work - and bitdefender is probably the worst option for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This happened to me , too... bitdefender would flag nearly any file , and it first flagged a file that I had just updated , so I was genuinely concerned .
The next file is flagged , however , was usbstor.sys , so I knew the AV was probably wrong .
Some people were running virus scans... tens of thousands of false detection , and all of the files were quarantined or deleted... it was a really bad situation for many .
I 'm not sure how non-technical users fared .
I use bitdefender on my computer only - I like the aggressive detection capabilities and reporting options .
However , no one else in my house wants to know what their AV is doing - they just want it to work - and bitdefender is probably the worst option for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happened to me, too... bitdefender would flag nearly any file, and it first flagged a file that I had just updated, so I was genuinely concerned.
The next file is flagged, however, was usbstor.sys, so I knew the AV was probably wrong.
Some people were running virus scans... tens of thousands of false detection, and all of the files were quarantined or deleted... it was a really bad situation for many.
I'm not sure how non-technical users fared.
I use bitdefender on my computer only - I like the aggressive detection capabilities and reporting options.
However, no one else in my house wants to know what their AV is doing - they just want it to work - and bitdefender is probably the worst option for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558078</id>
	<title>This happened to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This actually happened to me, at first I couldn't log in with my password, had to use Bart's PE disc to reset that, then I couldn't get any icons on my desktop of use the start button, then just a black screen, I thought I had a virus for real, so I reformatted , this was yesterday, wish I could have seen this but I don't know how they would have reversed it anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This actually happened to me , at first I could n't log in with my password , had to use Bart 's PE disc to reset that , then I could n't get any icons on my desktop of use the start button , then just a black screen , I thought I had a virus for real , so I reformatted , this was yesterday , wish I could have seen this but I do n't know how they would have reversed it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This actually happened to me, at first I couldn't log in with my password, had to use Bart's PE disc to reset that, then I couldn't get any icons on my desktop of use the start button, then just a black screen, I thought I had a virus for real, so I reformatted , this was yesterday, wish I could have seen this but I don't know how they would have reversed it anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558126</id>
	<title>Quick</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1269192540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quick, someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick , someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick, someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558990</id>
	<title>Re:How many times does this happen?</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1269200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And why hasn't the "security industry" started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet?</p></div><p>It's a good question but a better one would be 'Why do virus scanners have to exist at all?'</p><p>It's deeply sick to have to check all files against a huge list of checksums of magic incantations. It's better, but still not good to keep a list of checksums of files that don't contain magic windows-trashing incantations. The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why has n't the " security industry " started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet ? It 's a good question but a better one would be 'Why do virus scanners have to exist at all ?
'It 's deeply sick to have to check all files against a huge list of checksums of magic incantations .
It 's better , but still not good to keep a list of checksums of files that do n't contain magic windows-trashing incantations .
The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why hasn't the "security industry" started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet?It's a good question but a better one would be 'Why do virus scanners have to exist at all?
'It's deeply sick to have to check all files against a huge list of checksums of magic incantations.
It's better, but still not good to keep a list of checksums of files that don't contain magic windows-trashing incantations.
The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558892</id>
	<title>This isn't the first time...</title>
	<author>TermV</author>
	<datestamp>1269199500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bad Bitdefender update prevented all Windows binaries from running a few months ago. It would start popping up errors saying all my services were failing and wouldn't launch any applications. I actually formatted and reinstalled my laptop because I thought the whole thing was infected with a virus. What a pain in the ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bad Bitdefender update prevented all Windows binaries from running a few months ago .
It would start popping up errors saying all my services were failing and would n't launch any applications .
I actually formatted and reinstalled my laptop because I thought the whole thing was infected with a virus .
What a pain in the ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bad Bitdefender update prevented all Windows binaries from running a few months ago.
It would start popping up errors saying all my services were failing and wouldn't launch any applications.
I actually formatted and reinstalled my laptop because I thought the whole thing was infected with a virus.
What a pain in the ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564750</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1269253080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Living a life full of worry that their machine is an accidental click away from hours of removing crap from their system, followed by weeks of wondering whether or not they got all the cancer out.. </i></p><p>Yes, indeed. I spend my entire life in fear of my poor lil' Windows machine get 0wned...</p><p>Or perhaps...for most of us a computer is just a tool, a piece of machinery. And just like a lot of tools, some people know how to use it properly, and some folks get their brains bashed in or their fingers sawn off.</p><p>I'll admit that most tools don't have entire legions trying to hack them to get to your bank account though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Living a life full of worry that their machine is an accidental click away from hours of removing crap from their system , followed by weeks of wondering whether or not they got all the cancer out.. Yes , indeed .
I spend my entire life in fear of my poor lil ' Windows machine get 0wned...Or perhaps...for most of us a computer is just a tool , a piece of machinery .
And just like a lot of tools , some people know how to use it properly , and some folks get their brains bashed in or their fingers sawn off.I 'll admit that most tools do n't have entire legions trying to hack them to get to your bank account though ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Living a life full of worry that their machine is an accidental click away from hours of removing crap from their system, followed by weeks of wondering whether or not they got all the cancer out.. Yes, indeed.
I spend my entire life in fear of my poor lil' Windows machine get 0wned...Or perhaps...for most of us a computer is just a tool, a piece of machinery.
And just like a lot of tools, some people know how to use it properly, and some folks get their brains bashed in or their fingers sawn off.I'll admit that most tools don't have entire legions trying to hack them to get to your bank account though ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558438</id>
	<title>I've had similar with COMODO</title>
	<author>thatbloke83</author>
	<datestamp>1269195540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another Antivirus software package (COMODO) has caused problems of this nature for me at work - it updated, asked to reboot and on rebooting we were just presented with a black screen, the desktop wouldn't load. Fortunately we were able to reboot into safe mode and just uninstall it until there was an update issued, but it was still part of a morning lost...

While it's impossible to test every configuration ever, I'd have thought that something that would affect EVERY system in an office using this software should have been picked up during testing...

Well you learn from your mistakes. If it happens again, there will be hell to pay, I'm sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another Antivirus software package ( COMODO ) has caused problems of this nature for me at work - it updated , asked to reboot and on rebooting we were just presented with a black screen , the desktop would n't load .
Fortunately we were able to reboot into safe mode and just uninstall it until there was an update issued , but it was still part of a morning lost.. . While it 's impossible to test every configuration ever , I 'd have thought that something that would affect EVERY system in an office using this software should have been picked up during testing.. . Well you learn from your mistakes .
If it happens again , there will be hell to pay , I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another Antivirus software package (COMODO) has caused problems of this nature for me at work - it updated, asked to reboot and on rebooting we were just presented with a black screen, the desktop wouldn't load.
Fortunately we were able to reboot into safe mode and just uninstall it until there was an update issued, but it was still part of a morning lost...

While it's impossible to test every configuration ever, I'd have thought that something that would affect EVERY system in an office using this software should have been picked up during testing...

Well you learn from your mistakes.
If it happens again, there will be hell to pay, I'm sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559194</id>
	<title>Re:Trusting your AV too far...</title>
	<author>carterhawk001</author>
	<datestamp>1269202080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I ended up just restoring off a backup and re-updating bit defender. Whatever update I got no longer had the faulty code in it. I emphasized to my friends and family the importance of having a system backup available for just such emergencies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ended up just restoring off a backup and re-updating bit defender .
Whatever update I got no longer had the faulty code in it .
I emphasized to my friends and family the importance of having a system backup available for just such emergencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ended up just restoring off a backup and re-updating bit defender.
Whatever update I got no longer had the faulty code in it.
I emphasized to my friends and family the importance of having a system backup available for just such emergencies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31562842</id>
	<title>Re:So secure, NOTHING will run</title>
	<author>loxosceles</author>
	<datestamp>1269185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTLOG, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural\_form\_of\_words\_ending\_in\_-us#Virus" title="wikipedia.org">virii</a> [wikipedia.org] is <a href="http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/virii.html" title="wsu.edu">not</a> [wsu.edu] a <a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Virii" title="encycloped...matica.com">word</a> [encycloped...matica.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTLOG , virii [ wikipedia.org ] is not [ wsu.edu ] a word [ encycloped...matica.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTLOG, virii [wikipedia.org] is not [wsu.edu] a word [encycloped...matica.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558514</id>
	<title>Re:what incompetent boobs</title>
	<author>Platinum Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1269196080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems to be a semi-common issue. One place I kill time at uses Trend Micro on a couple of machines, and two updates within the past eight months have broken networking in funky ways that made updating impossible until workarounds were determined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be a semi-common issue .
One place I kill time at uses Trend Micro on a couple of machines , and two updates within the past eight months have broken networking in funky ways that made updating impossible until workarounds were determined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be a semi-common issue.
One place I kill time at uses Trend Micro on a couple of machines, and two updates within the past eight months have broken networking in funky ways that made updating impossible until workarounds were determined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31561808</id>
	<title>Re:what incompetent boobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269177900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before doing that, you'd think they'd have a library of files that are commonly found on windows machines that are known good, and an automated test that 'scans' this library with the proposed set of updates, looking for any false positives.</p><p>This is so embarrasingly easy to do; the only sightly difficult bit would be designing a system for the scan to happen in parallel on a flock of machines (to get the scan done in a timly fashion.)  But, really, compared to the complextity of writing the pattern recognition engine to begin with, that's nothing.</p><p>(Doesn't guarentee there would be no problems, but given how easy this would be to automate, sure as heck worth it.  Extra credit would be ensuring that the library of *viruses* are still detected, making sure there are no false-negative regressions.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before doing that , you 'd think they 'd have a library of files that are commonly found on windows machines that are known good , and an automated test that 'scans ' this library with the proposed set of updates , looking for any false positives.This is so embarrasingly easy to do ; the only sightly difficult bit would be designing a system for the scan to happen in parallel on a flock of machines ( to get the scan done in a timly fashion .
) But , really , compared to the complextity of writing the pattern recognition engine to begin with , that 's nothing .
( Does n't guarentee there would be no problems , but given how easy this would be to automate , sure as heck worth it .
Extra credit would be ensuring that the library of * viruses * are still detected , making sure there are no false-negative regressions .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before doing that, you'd think they'd have a library of files that are commonly found on windows machines that are known good, and an automated test that 'scans' this library with the proposed set of updates, looking for any false positives.This is so embarrasingly easy to do; the only sightly difficult bit would be designing a system for the scan to happen in parallel on a flock of machines (to get the scan done in a timly fashion.
)  But, really, compared to the complextity of writing the pattern recognition engine to begin with, that's nothing.
(Doesn't guarentee there would be no problems, but given how easy this would be to automate, sure as heck worth it.
Extra credit would be ensuring that the library of *viruses* are still detected, making sure there are no false-negative regressions.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558288</id>
	<title>Re:what incompetent boobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269193980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They might have. You wouldn't necessarily think that you need to restart after an antivirus update</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They might have .
You would n't necessarily think that you need to restart after an antivirus update</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They might have.
You wouldn't necessarily think that you need to restart after an antivirus update</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31560084</id>
	<title>Re:How many times does this happen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269165420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert.</p></div><p>Windows security is certainly improving (fuck off if you think otherwise), but it's really a case of educating dumbass users. Linux is only 'more secure' because it's not <i>generally</i> used by dumbasses.</p><p>So... do you have a more practical solution? Didn't think so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert.Windows security is certainly improving ( fuck off if you think otherwise ) , but it 's really a case of educating dumbass users .
Linux is only 'more secure ' because it 's not generally used by dumbasses.So... do you have a more practical solution ?
Did n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert.Windows security is certainly improving (fuck off if you think otherwise), but it's really a case of educating dumbass users.
Linux is only 'more secure' because it's not generally used by dumbasses.So... do you have a more practical solution?
Didn't think so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564240</id>
	<title>Re:what incompetent boobs</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269200760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's one of those "shit happens" things.</p><p>AV signatures get updated at the very least twice a day. In some companies, the (internal) updatecycle is 3-4 hours. And not all of them have the manpower of Kaspersky. The whole signatures-packaging is often a job for one or two people. Sure, 99\% of it is automated, but that's also one of the reasons why something like this can happen.</p><p>One good reason for something like this happening is what I like to call the "race for a First". Being the first to detect something. That's basically the game they're in. The first gets the credit, they get to choose the "official" name, a lot of importance in the AV world is based on "firsts". So it's tempting to slip another signature in just before the update to claim one of the "firsts". And when that update is 10 minutes away, a full test against the whitelist and false positives list is not really an option if you want that signature to be in that update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one of those " shit happens " things.AV signatures get updated at the very least twice a day .
In some companies , the ( internal ) updatecycle is 3-4 hours .
And not all of them have the manpower of Kaspersky .
The whole signatures-packaging is often a job for one or two people .
Sure , 99 \ % of it is automated , but that 's also one of the reasons why something like this can happen.One good reason for something like this happening is what I like to call the " race for a First " .
Being the first to detect something .
That 's basically the game they 're in .
The first gets the credit , they get to choose the " official " name , a lot of importance in the AV world is based on " firsts " .
So it 's tempting to slip another signature in just before the update to claim one of the " firsts " .
And when that update is 10 minutes away , a full test against the whitelist and false positives list is not really an option if you want that signature to be in that update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one of those "shit happens" things.AV signatures get updated at the very least twice a day.
In some companies, the (internal) updatecycle is 3-4 hours.
And not all of them have the manpower of Kaspersky.
The whole signatures-packaging is often a job for one or two people.
Sure, 99\% of it is automated, but that's also one of the reasons why something like this can happen.One good reason for something like this happening is what I like to call the "race for a First".
Being the first to detect something.
That's basically the game they're in.
The first gets the credit, they get to choose the "official" name, a lot of importance in the AV world is based on "firsts".
So it's tempting to slip another signature in just before the update to claim one of the "firsts".
And when that update is 10 minutes away, a full test against the whitelist and false positives list is not really an option if you want that signature to be in that update.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558662</id>
	<title>How many times does this happen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269197520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why hasn't the "security industry" started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet?</p><p>Seriously. Identifying the safe files is easier than identifying the infected ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why has n't the " security industry " started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet ? Seriously .
Identifying the safe files is easier than identifying the infected ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why hasn't the "security industry" started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet?Seriously.
Identifying the safe files is easier than identifying the infected ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31569590</id>
	<title>Re:How Appropriate</title>
	<author>Sagelinka</author>
	<datestamp>1269276120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just goes to show that people shouldn't use BitDefender.</htmltext>
<tokenext>just goes to show that people should n't use BitDefender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just goes to show that people shouldn't use BitDefender.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558792</id>
	<title>Quick Scanner</title>
	<author>vacarul</author>
	<datestamp>1269198720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had BitDefender Quick Scanner (Firefox extension) and two days ago it was updated. After that no flash was displayed on any website. Only an "install missing plug-in..." message. I reinstalled the plug-in but the message remained. I went to their website to notice them but you must have a product key or something like that, and Quick Scanner was not even in the products list (it's a free add-on). At that point I gave up...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had BitDefender Quick Scanner ( Firefox extension ) and two days ago it was updated .
After that no flash was displayed on any website .
Only an " install missing plug-in... " message .
I reinstalled the plug-in but the message remained .
I went to their website to notice them but you must have a product key or something like that , and Quick Scanner was not even in the products list ( it 's a free add-on ) .
At that point I gave up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had BitDefender Quick Scanner (Firefox extension) and two days ago it was updated.
After that no flash was displayed on any website.
Only an "install missing plug-in..." message.
I reinstalled the plug-in but the message remained.
I went to their website to notice them but you must have a product key or something like that, and Quick Scanner was not even in the products list (it's a free add-on).
At that point I gave up...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558382</id>
	<title>Re:what incompetent boobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269194940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is, are they 36D boobs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is , are they 36D boobs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is, are they 36D boobs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558300</id>
	<title>LAWL</title>
	<author>wampus</author>
	<datestamp>1269194160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Linux so this naturally does not effect me!  Linux is the only security I need, unlike that Mick&euro;y$&pound;oth garbage you lamers insist on using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Linux so this naturally does not effect me !
Linux is the only security I need , unlike that Mick    y $   oth garbage you lamers insist on using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Linux so this naturally does not effect me!
Linux is the only security I need, unlike that Mick€y$£oth garbage you lamers insist on using.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082</id>
	<title>what incompetent boobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>you would think they would at least test updates on a few different systems (including the 64 bit systems) before releasing it to customers</htmltext>
<tokenext>you would think they would at least test updates on a few different systems ( including the 64 bit systems ) before releasing it to customers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you would think they would at least test updates on a few different systems (including the 64 bit systems) before releasing it to customers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557998</id>
	<title>PR - from blue screen to no screen!</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1269191100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could have claimed it was all a part of a mock cyber-attack! Oh joy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could have claimed it was all a part of a mock cyber-attack !
Oh joy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could have claimed it was all a part of a mock cyber-attack!
Oh joy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558258</id>
	<title>poor windows users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269193800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well not poor, they paid the $250+ for Windows 64 bit, lamers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well not poor , they paid the $ 250 + for Windows 64 bit , lamers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well not poor, they paid the $250+ for Windows 64 bit, lamers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558136</id>
	<title>Re:Update Filter / Schedule</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269192600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you good sir, are an idiot. This update has nothing todo with Windows updates. Before you go on a rant about something you obviously have no clue about, how about RTFA first.</p><p>I guess you must work in the food industry after all, probably the dumb fuck who always messes up my food when I go out to eat. Perhaps the root of the problem for you, was that your mom did drugs and drank while you were developing, and then she opted for a water-birth and you drowned a bit too long after you fell out of her cunt.</p><p>Do us a favor, and just go rest in the middle of a busy highway during rush-hour traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you good sir , are an idiot .
This update has nothing todo with Windows updates .
Before you go on a rant about something you obviously have no clue about , how about RTFA first.I guess you must work in the food industry after all , probably the dumb fuck who always messes up my food when I go out to eat .
Perhaps the root of the problem for you , was that your mom did drugs and drank while you were developing , and then she opted for a water-birth and you drowned a bit too long after you fell out of her cunt.Do us a favor , and just go rest in the middle of a busy highway during rush-hour traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you good sir, are an idiot.
This update has nothing todo with Windows updates.
Before you go on a rant about something you obviously have no clue about, how about RTFA first.I guess you must work in the food industry after all, probably the dumb fuck who always messes up my food when I go out to eat.
Perhaps the root of the problem for you, was that your mom did drugs and drank while you were developing, and then she opted for a water-birth and you drowned a bit too long after you fell out of her cunt.Do us a favor, and just go rest in the middle of a busy highway during rush-hour traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559110</id>
	<title>Re:what incompetent boobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's quite feasible to download every patch from Microsoft and test your antivirus software against each and every one of them. Not doing so is negligent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's quite feasible to download every patch from Microsoft and test your antivirus software against each and every one of them .
Not doing so is negligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's quite feasible to download every patch from Microsoft and test your antivirus software against each and every one of them.
Not doing so is negligent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564120</id>
	<title>Re:How many times does this happen?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269198960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course. Well, in theory.</p><p>'tween you'n me... we do that already. Whitelisting is pretty much the ONLY way how contemporary scanners can be halfway decently fast. But those guys that make the other software are really, really spitting in our soup. They dare to launch updates for their software without notifying us. They just do, imagine, what cheek! And then they go and ram that up our ass... well, up our customer's ass and we don't know about it. Now, as you may imagine, especially system files and here especially kernel drivers do, well, kernel driver things. Ring0 access, putzing around in other people's memory, messing with the way things are loaded, all the nifty little things that anyone who wants to do some bad stuff would do, too!</p><p>Any behaviour heuristic goes bananas when it sees something like that. And this is how such things happen.</p><p>Plus the odd "whoopsie, we forgot to include the whitelist this time" update.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
Well , in theory .
'tween you'n me... we do that already .
Whitelisting is pretty much the ONLY way how contemporary scanners can be halfway decently fast .
But those guys that make the other software are really , really spitting in our soup .
They dare to launch updates for their software without notifying us .
They just do , imagine , what cheek !
And then they go and ram that up our ass... well , up our customer 's ass and we do n't know about it .
Now , as you may imagine , especially system files and here especially kernel drivers do , well , kernel driver things .
Ring0 access , putzing around in other people 's memory , messing with the way things are loaded , all the nifty little things that anyone who wants to do some bad stuff would do , too ! Any behaviour heuristic goes bananas when it sees something like that .
And this is how such things happen.Plus the odd " whoopsie , we forgot to include the whitelist this time " update .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
Well, in theory.
'tween you'n me... we do that already.
Whitelisting is pretty much the ONLY way how contemporary scanners can be halfway decently fast.
But those guys that make the other software are really, really spitting in our soup.
They dare to launch updates for their software without notifying us.
They just do, imagine, what cheek!
And then they go and ram that up our ass... well, up our customer's ass and we don't know about it.
Now, as you may imagine, especially system files and here especially kernel drivers do, well, kernel driver things.
Ring0 access, putzing around in other people's memory, messing with the way things are loaded, all the nifty little things that anyone who wants to do some bad stuff would do, too!Any behaviour heuristic goes bananas when it sees something like that.
And this is how such things happen.Plus the odd "whoopsie, we forgot to include the whitelist this time" update.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31560490</id>
	<title>Time is Worthless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269168120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux is only free if your time is worthless.</p><p>Windows users will surely be compensated for this, since paying 499.99 for Windows entitles them to some form of premium support or compensation...Right?</p><p>Wait, I *don't* get any compensation for this?</p><p>I don't get any support?</p><p>Wow, 499.99 just bought me a useless brick.</p><p>Windows, only worth 499.99 if your time is so worthless, you have to pay other people to listen to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is only free if your time is worthless.Windows users will surely be compensated for this , since paying 499.99 for Windows entitles them to some form of premium support or compensation...Right ? Wait , I * do n't * get any compensation for this ? I do n't get any support ? Wow , 499.99 just bought me a useless brick.Windows , only worth 499.99 if your time is so worthless , you have to pay other people to listen to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is only free if your time is worthless.Windows users will surely be compensated for this, since paying 499.99 for Windows entitles them to some form of premium support or compensation...Right?Wait, I *don't* get any compensation for this?I don't get any support?Wow, 499.99 just bought me a useless brick.Windows, only worth 499.99 if your time is so worthless, you have to pay other people to listen to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558014</id>
	<title>Update Filter / Schedule</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1269191340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is too bad that Microsoft has learned what we have all known for years. It's software is a virus, infecting our lives and bank accounts for years.
I wish there was a way to filter updates. The addition of Hide Update was a major improvement but now if we could just Block any Service Pack, BitDefender, and patch less than 2 months old from updating that would be wonderful.
It is not like microsoft reacts in a timely manner to its vulnerabilities anyway, what is another 2-6 months of being unprotected?
I think the people in QA need a pay bump.
The only reason I can come up with is they are payed so low that after they are done milking Microsoft and get fired they can always find a better paying job in the food industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is too bad that Microsoft has learned what we have all known for years .
It 's software is a virus , infecting our lives and bank accounts for years .
I wish there was a way to filter updates .
The addition of Hide Update was a major improvement but now if we could just Block any Service Pack , BitDefender , and patch less than 2 months old from updating that would be wonderful .
It is not like microsoft reacts in a timely manner to its vulnerabilities anyway , what is another 2-6 months of being unprotected ?
I think the people in QA need a pay bump .
The only reason I can come up with is they are payed so low that after they are done milking Microsoft and get fired they can always find a better paying job in the food industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is too bad that Microsoft has learned what we have all known for years.
It's software is a virus, infecting our lives and bank accounts for years.
I wish there was a way to filter updates.
The addition of Hide Update was a major improvement but now if we could just Block any Service Pack, BitDefender, and patch less than 2 months old from updating that would be wonderful.
It is not like microsoft reacts in a timely manner to its vulnerabilities anyway, what is another 2-6 months of being unprotected?
I think the people in QA need a pay bump.
The only reason I can come up with is they are payed so low that after they are done milking Microsoft and get fired they can always find a better paying job in the food industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559212</id>
	<title>Insanity</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1269202320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It never ceases to amaze me how much Windows users will endure.. Perhaps they are masochists and enjoy the pain of having their system occasionally rendered useless.. Living a life full of worry that their machine is an accidental click away from hours of removing crap from their system, followed by weeks of wondering whether or not they got all the cancer out.. Perhaps they enjoy the challenge of constantly defending themselves.. Proving that the are SMARTER than the other masochists that get burned.. Keeping your system safe has become just another game, and maybe that is fun.. I don't know.. And then they are paying some company that is supposed to put them in "God Mode" in the game they are playing.. but this protection costs them in money, and slows their protected system down.. often blocking legitimate things that they want to do, so they get an extra level of fun trying to figure out how to get their protection to allow them to use their PC.. And then even with all of this, they still occasionally get burned.. laugh it all off (after the anger and frustration has subsided), reinstall and reboot the game, and beg form more.. "Thank you sir may I have another ?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>It never ceases to amaze me how much Windows users will endure.. Perhaps they are masochists and enjoy the pain of having their system occasionally rendered useless.. Living a life full of worry that their machine is an accidental click away from hours of removing crap from their system , followed by weeks of wondering whether or not they got all the cancer out.. Perhaps they enjoy the challenge of constantly defending themselves.. Proving that the are SMARTER than the other masochists that get burned.. Keeping your system safe has become just another game , and maybe that is fun.. I do n't know.. And then they are paying some company that is supposed to put them in " God Mode " in the game they are playing.. but this protection costs them in money , and slows their protected system down.. often blocking legitimate things that they want to do , so they get an extra level of fun trying to figure out how to get their protection to allow them to use their PC.. And then even with all of this , they still occasionally get burned.. laugh it all off ( after the anger and frustration has subsided ) , reinstall and reboot the game , and beg form more.. " Thank you sir may I have another ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never ceases to amaze me how much Windows users will endure.. Perhaps they are masochists and enjoy the pain of having their system occasionally rendered useless.. Living a life full of worry that their machine is an accidental click away from hours of removing crap from their system, followed by weeks of wondering whether or not they got all the cancer out.. Perhaps they enjoy the challenge of constantly defending themselves.. Proving that the are SMARTER than the other masochists that get burned.. Keeping your system safe has become just another game, and maybe that is fun.. I don't know.. And then they are paying some company that is supposed to put them in "God Mode" in the game they are playing.. but this protection costs them in money, and slows their protected system down.. often blocking legitimate things that they want to do, so they get an extra level of fun trying to figure out how to get their protection to allow them to use their PC.. And then even with all of this, they still occasionally get burned.. laugh it all off (after the anger and frustration has subsided), reinstall and reboot the game, and beg form more.. "Thank you sir may I have another ?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558204</id>
	<title>Nothing new</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1269193200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember a few years ago that an update to the compulsory antivirus software on some of our PCs at work went ahead and deleted some important Windows system files if you had it configured to auto-scan the disk; mine wasn't so I was able to disable it before losing the files, but anyone who let it run overnight came into work to find a dead PC waiting for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember a few years ago that an update to the compulsory antivirus software on some of our PCs at work went ahead and deleted some important Windows system files if you had it configured to auto-scan the disk ; mine was n't so I was able to disable it before losing the files , but anyone who let it run overnight came into work to find a dead PC waiting for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember a few years ago that an update to the compulsory antivirus software on some of our PCs at work went ahead and deleted some important Windows system files if you had it configured to auto-scan the disk; mine wasn't so I was able to disable it before losing the files, but anyone who let it run overnight came into work to find a dead PC waiting for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944</id>
	<title>How Appropriate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269190680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Valid files detected as "FakeAlert"? Wow, irony DOES go a long way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valid files detected as " FakeAlert " ?
Wow , irony DOES go a long way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valid files detected as "FakeAlert"?
Wow, irony DOES go a long way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31569590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31572408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31563810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31560084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31562842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31561808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1515230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558990
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31560084
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31563810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31572408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31569590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31560490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31561808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31564240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31559036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31562842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31558078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1515230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1515230.31557998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
