<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_23_0415208</id>
	<title>Germany Warns Against Using Firefox</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269370260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jayme0227 writes <i>"Due to the recent exploit in Firefox, Germany has <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8580716.stm">warned against its use</a>. This comes a couple months after <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/16/1239212/German-Government-Advises-Public-To-Stop-Using-IE">Germany advised against using IE</a>. Perhaps we should start taking odds as to which browser will be next."</i> Note: the warning (from the Federal Office for Information Security) is provisional, and should be rendered moot by the release later this month of 3.6.2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>jayme0227 writes " Due to the recent exploit in Firefox , Germany has warned against its use .
This comes a couple months after Germany advised against using IE .
Perhaps we should start taking odds as to which browser will be next .
" Note : the warning ( from the Federal Office for Information Security ) is provisional , and should be rendered moot by the release later this month of 3.6.2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jayme0227 writes "Due to the recent exploit in Firefox, Germany has warned against its use.
This comes a couple months after Germany advised against using IE.
Perhaps we should start taking odds as to which browser will be next.
" Note: the warning (from the Federal Office for Information Security) is provisional, and should be rendered moot by the release later this month of 3.6.2.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580646</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269338340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenBSD seems to do just fine, with a bigger codebase, written in <i>C</i>.</p><p>Wanna guess what the difference is? They have security-obsessed people in charge.</p><p>Nobody gets credit for fixing a bug. Instead, we celebrate the people who get a fix out fastest. We don't care about flammable buildings, but we watch the response time of the fire department like a hawk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenBSD seems to do just fine , with a bigger codebase , written in C.Wan na guess what the difference is ?
They have security-obsessed people in charge.Nobody gets credit for fixing a bug .
Instead , we celebrate the people who get a fix out fastest .
We do n't care about flammable buildings , but we watch the response time of the fire department like a hawk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenBSD seems to do just fine, with a bigger codebase, written in C.Wanna guess what the difference is?
They have security-obsessed people in charge.Nobody gets credit for fixing a bug.
Instead, we celebrate the people who get a fix out fastest.
We don't care about flammable buildings, but we watch the response time of the fire department like a hawk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582418</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269354240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And WHERE'S MY PONY?!<br></i><br>Outside, next to your flying car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And WHERE 'S MY PONY ?
! Outside , next to your flying car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And WHERE'S MY PONY?
!Outside, next to your flying car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31588060</id>
	<title>Did MS Ever Fix the IE Bugs?</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1269375720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's my real question.  FF was fixed in a month.  Was IE fixed and how long did it take?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my real question .
FF was fixed in a month .
Was IE fixed and how long did it take ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my real question.
FF was fixed in a month.
Was IE fixed and how long did it take?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580962</id>
	<title>General warning</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1269342060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is general warning not to use any software that has known and/or unknown bugs in it. This warning goes moot when every known and/or unknown issue is solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is general warning not to use any software that has known and/or unknown bugs in it .
This warning goes moot when every known and/or unknown issue is solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is general warning not to use any software that has known and/or unknown bugs in it.
This warning goes moot when every known and/or unknown issue is solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580622</id>
	<title>Re:3.6.2 released</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269337980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow, I've always hated firefox.<br>Yes it is overrated, bloated and ugly (always has been), it wastes screen space and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. its organic software (organic! I tell you)</p><p>
&nbsp; And look at their web page, its full of stuff that was made up by clever marketing people. Its not the best browsing experience and certainly not a fast one. Hell, I even prefer IE 8 to this crappy software.</p><p>go opera, go chrome</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , I 've always hated firefox.Yes it is overrated , bloated and ugly ( always has been ) , it wastes screen space and .. its organic software ( organic !
I tell you )   And look at their web page , its full of stuff that was made up by clever marketing people .
Its not the best browsing experience and certainly not a fast one .
Hell , I even prefer IE 8 to this crappy software.go opera , go chrome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, I've always hated firefox.Yes it is overrated, bloated and ugly (always has been), it wastes screen space and .. its organic software (organic!
I tell you)
  And look at their web page, its full of stuff that was made up by clever marketing people.
Its not the best browsing experience and certainly not a fast one.
Hell, I even prefer IE 8 to this crappy software.go opera, go chrome</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581722</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269350340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well for one he didn't say "programming correctly is the right response" he said "I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with."</p><p>Anyone who is a professional developer knows that while bug/exploit free software is a nice idea and something to aim for but it is impossible achieve. Any software that realistically attempted to be completely bug free, exploit free or hack proof would never be released. It would be forever in development. It is like asking an civil engineer to build a bridge that could *never* collapse no matter the circumstances. Sure there are things he can do that can do to minimise the chance but he can't ever completely rule out a collapse.</p><p>His notion is simplistic, idealistic and frankly naive. It is also dangerous because people who think they have written flawless software would likely not be the quickest to fix an exploit or bug.</p><p>That is why he was being laughed at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for one he did n't say " programming correctly is the right response " he said " I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with .
" Anyone who is a professional developer knows that while bug/exploit free software is a nice idea and something to aim for but it is impossible achieve .
Any software that realistically attempted to be completely bug free , exploit free or hack proof would never be released .
It would be forever in development .
It is like asking an civil engineer to build a bridge that could * never * collapse no matter the circumstances .
Sure there are things he can do that can do to minimise the chance but he ca n't ever completely rule out a collapse.His notion is simplistic , idealistic and frankly naive .
It is also dangerous because people who think they have written flawless software would likely not be the quickest to fix an exploit or bug.That is why he was being laughed at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for one he didn't say "programming correctly is the right response" he said "I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with.
"Anyone who is a professional developer knows that while bug/exploit free software is a nice idea and something to aim for but it is impossible achieve.
Any software that realistically attempted to be completely bug free, exploit free or hack proof would never be released.
It would be forever in development.
It is like asking an civil engineer to build a bridge that could *never* collapse no matter the circumstances.
Sure there are things he can do that can do to minimise the chance but he can't ever completely rule out a collapse.His notion is simplistic, idealistic and frankly naive.
It is also dangerous because people who think they have written flawless software would likely not be the quickest to fix an exploit or bug.That is why he was being laughed at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581334</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269346260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; OpenBSD seems to do just fine, with a bigger codebase, written in C.<br><br>They just ship OpenBSD with most services disabled by default, and then claim it is safe by default.<br><br>That's similar to Microsoft's shipping IE on their server O/S with most stuff disabled by default, and then claiming that IE is not vulnerable<br>on their server O/Ses by default.<br><br>Yes they are safe by default just like a car with its wheels, engine and battery "disabled" by default is safe from most carjackers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; OpenBSD seems to do just fine , with a bigger codebase , written in C.They just ship OpenBSD with most services disabled by default , and then claim it is safe by default.That 's similar to Microsoft 's shipping IE on their server O/S with most stuff disabled by default , and then claiming that IE is not vulnerableon their server O/Ses by default.Yes they are safe by default just like a car with its wheels , engine and battery " disabled " by default is safe from most carjackers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; OpenBSD seems to do just fine, with a bigger codebase, written in C.They just ship OpenBSD with most services disabled by default, and then claim it is safe by default.That's similar to Microsoft's shipping IE on their server O/S with most stuff disabled by default, and then claiming that IE is not vulnerableon their server O/Ses by default.Yes they are safe by default just like a car with its wheels, engine and battery "disabled" by default is safe from most carjackers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581412</id>
	<title>Ask &amp; ye shall receive (OPERA!)... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269347160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above &amp; also, note this report from SECUNIA:</p><p>----</p><p><b>Vulnerability Report: Opera 10.x:</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>Unpatched 0\% (0 of 5 Secunia advisories)</p><p>----</p><p><b>Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE, here:</b></p><p><a href="http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/" title="opera.com" rel="nofollow">http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/</a> [opera.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED, at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well, consistently &amp; for years, no less!</b></p><p>Per latest:</p><p>1.) SunSpider tests done here recently -&gt; <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087" title="pcpro.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087</a> [pcpro.co.uk]</p><p>2.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, &amp; FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -&gt; <a href="http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win" title="howtocreate.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win</a> [howtocreate.co.uk] and this one too last year also -&gt; <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm" title="cnet.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm</a> [cnet.co.uk]</p><p>("Beat that with a stick", as the saying goes!)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool, as far as browser features, &amp; first (e,g, - tabbed browsing anyone), &amp; it contains features you cannot get in FireFox &amp; IE natively (i.e - without addons (such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website, or not (javascript IS what gets you people all "hit" by these online attacks, 9/10 times (literally, it's the "main delivery mechanism" of MOST online attacks, &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much, easily)))... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above &amp; also , note this report from SECUNIA : ----Vulnerability Report : Opera 10.x : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/ [ secunia.com ] Unpatched 0 \ % ( 0 of 5 Secunia advisories ) ----Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE , here : http : //my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ [ opera.com ] ----OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED , at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well , consistently &amp; for years , no less ! Per latest : 1 .
) SunSpider tests done here recently - &gt; http : //www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 [ pcpro.co.uk ] 2 .
) AND IT HAS BEEN " BLOWING AWAY " FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL , &amp; FOR YEARS NOW , per this test years ago - &gt; http : //www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html # win [ howtocreate.co.uk ] and this one too last year also - &gt; http : //crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm [ cnet.co.uk ] ( " Beat that with a stick " , as the saying goes !
) APKP.S. = &gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool , as far as browser features , &amp; first ( e,g , - tabbed browsing anyone ) , &amp; it contains features you can not get in FireFox &amp; IE natively ( i.e - without addons ( such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website , or not ( javascript IS what gets you people all " hit " by these online attacks , 9/10 times ( literally , it 's the " main delivery mechanism " of MOST online attacks , &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much , easily ) ) ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above &amp; also, note this report from SECUNIA:----Vulnerability Report: Opera 10.x:http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/ [secunia.com]Unpatched 0\% (0 of 5 Secunia advisories)----Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE, here:http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ [opera.com]----OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED, at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well, consistently &amp; for years, no less!Per latest:1.
) SunSpider tests done here recently -&gt; http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 [pcpro.co.uk]2.
) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, &amp; FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -&gt; http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win [howtocreate.co.uk] and this one too last year also -&gt; http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm [cnet.co.uk]("Beat that with a stick", as the saying goes!
)APKP.S.=&gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool, as far as browser features, &amp; first (e,g, - tabbed browsing anyone), &amp; it contains features you cannot get in FireFox &amp; IE natively (i.e - without addons (such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website, or not (javascript IS what gets you people all "hit" by these online attacks, 9/10 times (literally, it's the "main delivery mechanism" of MOST online attacks, &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much, easily)))... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581212</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269345060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I want a pony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I want a pony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I want a pony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581138</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269344400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And I want Anonymous Cowards to start making<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posts that are insightful, useful, and realistic.</p></div><p>We do but no-one ever reads them.</p><p>If we had a more level playing field, AC posts would get modded more and AC would thus feel the need to chase karma like the rest of you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I want Anonymous Cowards to start making / .
posts that are insightful , useful , and realistic.We do but no-one ever reads them.If we had a more level playing field , AC posts would get modded more and AC would thus feel the need to chase karma like the rest of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I want Anonymous Cowards to start making /.
posts that are insightful, useful, and realistic.We do but no-one ever reads them.If we had a more level playing field, AC posts would get modded more and AC would thus feel the need to chase karma like the rest of you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580132</id>
	<title>3.6.2 is out.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/22/firefox-3-6-2-update-now-available-as-free-download/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">3.6.2 is out.</a> [mozilla.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>3.6.2 is out .
[ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.6.2 is out.
[mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581292</id>
	<title>Re:3.6.2 released</title>
	<author>JohnBailey</author>
	<datestamp>1269345780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Confirmed. Just popped up for download now.11:03 GMT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Confirmed .
Just popped up for download now.11 : 03 GMT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Confirmed.
Just popped up for download now.11:03 GMT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580144</id>
	<title>governments warn us about exploits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and advise us which browser to use? huh? my taxes are too high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and advise us which browser to use ?
huh ? my taxes are too high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and advise us which browser to use?
huh? my taxes are too high.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580394</id>
	<title>Older versions have unpatched vulnerabilities?</title>
	<author>buchanmilne</author>
	<datestamp>1269377940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article says:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It is only the current version that is affected, but given that prior releases have different vulnerabilities, reverting to an older version of the browser is ill-advised.</p></div><p>However, <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html" title="mozilla.com">the older releases page</a> [mozilla.com] states that 3.5 will receive security updates until August 2010.</p><p>So, since 3.5 was not affected by this specific vulnerability, what vulnerabilities are unpatched in the current 3.5 release (3.5.8)?</p><p>If the Beeb or the German government knows something Firefox doesn't know, maybe they should tell us so that people still using/shipping (in the case of most linux distros) 3.5 can upgrade to 3.6? Or, if they *don't* know better, maybe they should stick to fact and not conjecture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says : It is only the current version that is affected , but given that prior releases have different vulnerabilities , reverting to an older version of the browser is ill-advised.However , the older releases page [ mozilla.com ] states that 3.5 will receive security updates until August 2010.So , since 3.5 was not affected by this specific vulnerability , what vulnerabilities are unpatched in the current 3.5 release ( 3.5.8 ) ? If the Beeb or the German government knows something Firefox does n't know , maybe they should tell us so that people still using/shipping ( in the case of most linux distros ) 3.5 can upgrade to 3.6 ?
Or , if they * do n't * know better , maybe they should stick to fact and not conjecture .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says:It is only the current version that is affected, but given that prior releases have different vulnerabilities, reverting to an older version of the browser is ill-advised.However, the older releases page [mozilla.com] states that 3.5 will receive security updates until August 2010.So, since 3.5 was not affected by this specific vulnerability, what vulnerabilities are unpatched in the current 3.5 release (3.5.8)?If the Beeb or the German government knows something Firefox doesn't know, maybe they should tell us so that people still using/shipping (in the case of most linux distros) 3.5 can upgrade to 3.6?
Or, if they *don't* know better, maybe they should stick to fact and not conjecture ...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581640</id>
	<title>In Other News</title>
	<author>Slash.Poop</author>
	<datestamp>1269349620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Germans Love David Hasselhoff</htmltext>
<tokenext>Germans Love David Hasselhoff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Germans Love David Hasselhoff</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582598</id>
	<title>What's up with /. ?</title>
	<author>AmigaMMC</author>
	<datestamp>1269354840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;Germany warns against use of Firefox browser-&gt;  on Monday March 22, @11:00PM AmigaMMC <p>
&gt;Submitted by AmigaMMC on Monday March 22, @11:00PM </p><p>

How does publication of submission exactly work? I had posted the same article nearly 3 hours before this one and yet it was not picked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Germany warns against use of Firefox browser- &gt; on Monday March 22 , @ 11 : 00PM AmigaMMC &gt; Submitted by AmigaMMC on Monday March 22 , @ 11 : 00PM How does publication of submission exactly work ?
I had posted the same article nearly 3 hours before this one and yet it was not picked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Germany warns against use of Firefox browser-&gt;  on Monday March 22, @11:00PM AmigaMMC 
&gt;Submitted by AmigaMMC on Monday March 22, @11:00PM 

How does publication of submission exactly work?
I had posted the same article nearly 3 hours before this one and yet it was not picked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581242</id>
	<title>Re:German government warns:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269345360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Besser umsteigen: Sicherheitsl&#252;cke in Opera </b></p><p>Eine Sicherheitsl&#252;cke im Browser Opera erm&#246;glicht Angreifern, beliebigen Schadcode auf fremden Rechnern auszuf&#252;hren. Dies meldet die IT-News-Seite Heise. Betroffen sind die aktuelle Opera-Version 10.50 unter Windows sowie m&#246;glicherweise andere Versionen. Ein Update, das den Fehler behebt, gibt es bislang nicht. Das B&#252;rger-CERT r&#228;t Anwendern dazu, einen alternativen Browser zu benutzen, bis die Schwachstelle beseitigt ist.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.buerger-cert.de/newsletter\_archiv.aspx?param=Zxo7YT\%2F0ple\%2FOiZEwow7dg\%253d\%253d#anchor1" title="buerger-cert.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.buerger-cert.de/newsletter\_archiv.aspx?param=Zxo7YT\%2F0ple\%2FOiZEwow7dg\%253d\%253d#anchor1</a> [buerger-cert.de]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besser umsteigen : Sicherheitsl   cke in Opera Eine Sicherheitsl   cke im Browser Opera erm   glicht Angreifern , beliebigen Schadcode auf fremden Rechnern auszuf   hren .
Dies meldet die IT-News-Seite Heise .
Betroffen sind die aktuelle Opera-Version 10.50 unter Windows sowie m   glicherweise andere Versionen .
Ein Update , das den Fehler behebt , gibt es bislang nicht .
Das B   rger-CERT r   t Anwendern dazu , einen alternativen Browser zu benutzen , bis die Schwachstelle beseitigt ist .
http : //www.buerger-cert.de/newsletter \ _archiv.aspx ? param = Zxo7YT \ % 2F0ple \ % 2FOiZEwow7dg \ % 253d \ % 253d # anchor1 [ buerger-cert.de ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Besser umsteigen: Sicherheitslücke in Opera Eine Sicherheitslücke im Browser Opera ermöglicht Angreifern, beliebigen Schadcode auf fremden Rechnern auszuführen.
Dies meldet die IT-News-Seite Heise.
Betroffen sind die aktuelle Opera-Version 10.50 unter Windows sowie möglicherweise andere Versionen.
Ein Update, das den Fehler behebt, gibt es bislang nicht.
Das Bürger-CERT rät Anwendern dazu, einen alternativen Browser zu benutzen, bis die Schwachstelle beseitigt ist.
http://www.buerger-cert.de/newsletter\_archiv.aspx?param=Zxo7YT\%2F0ple\%2FOiZEwow7dg\%253d\%253d#anchor1 [buerger-cert.de]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580150</id>
	<title>A release that has just happened, in fact...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox 3.6.2 was released earlier tonight: <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6.2/releasenotes/" title="mozilla.com">http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6.2/releasenotes/</a> [mozilla.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox 3.6.2 was released earlier tonight : http : //www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6.2/releasenotes/ [ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox 3.6.2 was released earlier tonight: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6.2/releasenotes/ [mozilla.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580518</id>
	<title>Re:Older versions have unpatched vulnerabilities?</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1269336600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because reverting to older versions increases the chances of accidentally getting part of, say the 3.5.x branch, that isn't 3.5.8 and does have unpatched vulnerabilities. Remember that we're not really talking about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. users here - we already know about the current vulns, patches, workarounds and alternatives - but "regular" users of Firefox who are used to just clicking on the "Firefox x.x Free Download" link on the getfirefox.com frontpage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because reverting to older versions increases the chances of accidentally getting part of , say the 3.5.x branch , that is n't 3.5.8 and does have unpatched vulnerabilities .
Remember that we 're not really talking about / .
users here - we already know about the current vulns , patches , workarounds and alternatives - but " regular " users of Firefox who are used to just clicking on the " Firefox x.x Free Download " link on the getfirefox.com frontpage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because reverting to older versions increases the chances of accidentally getting part of, say the 3.5.x branch, that isn't 3.5.8 and does have unpatched vulnerabilities.
Remember that we're not really talking about /.
users here - we already know about the current vulns, patches, workarounds and alternatives - but "regular" users of Firefox who are used to just clicking on the "Firefox x.x Free Download" link on the getfirefox.com frontpage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580620</id>
	<title>deutchland deutchland uber alles -denn wir koennen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269337980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to Moore's Law, semiconductor-based hardware is on a never ending treadmill of improvement. The process can't be stopped or slowed down--it's relentless. Meanwhile, the software that sits atop this hardware doesn't keep up. I'm not sure why, but it gets on my nerves.</p><p>The treadmill is horrible. Every computer company is forced to either upgrade constantly or lower prices (or both). Compare what you could get for $3,500 in 1985 with what you can get today for $1,000, even factoring in inflation, R&amp;D, and the rest. The processing power of an Intel 286 was between one and three MIPS. Today's Core i7s do 7,500 to 75,000 MIPS (or more), depending on who is measuring. Of course this chip isn't in a $1,000 box yet, but it will be soon.</p><p>The fact of the matter is that the treadmill process has ironically ruined the business. Computing power has gone from something of value to a commodity. From 1975 to 1990, computers were valued transformative tools. They hit a brick wall when Windows 95 arrived, turning everyone into touchie-feelie mouse-oriented users. The GUI was a boon to sales since it simplified computer use, but it also began the commoditization process. After Windows 95 hit the streets, there was nothing much more to do beyond tweaking what you already had.</p><p>Here is the test: Get a hold of an old machine that still runs, say, Windows 3.0. See if you can run a program. The whole thing is clunky and, frankly, weird. Now see if you can operate a Windows 95 machine. Simple, right? It's not that different from Windows Vista or Windows 7. The GUI I/O is pretty much the same, save for the pretty pictures and 3D icons. The same holds true for Apple. An OS X user should find it very easy to operate the 1984-era Macintosh. This is not because it is inherently intuitive--it's not. (For further proof, watch Star Trek IV.) You can run it easy because things haven't changed that much.</p><p>The touchscreen tablets we'll be seeing in the coming months may deliver a new paradigm--but I doubt it. Right now it looks like we'll be stuck with "poke-and-slide." But like everything else in the consumer electronics space, the underlying technologies can't just be old ideas that have merely been tweaked, so we end up with a desktop computing scene that is essentially old software and ideas sitting on some of the most powerful gear imaginable.</p><p>It's as though auto racing had these modern drive trains and chassis for Formula One Racing, but no one could do much more with the body beyond tweaking a 1969 VW Beetle. And if asked to come up with a new design, no one could think of anything beyond the old model. This is where desktop computers sit right now, and I get the sense that it's not changing any time soon.</p><p>My biggest disappointment is with the Linux community. It could do much more than producing copycat GUIs for desktops. Perhaps there is a fantastic and unique GUI that is buried in the noise and cannot get any attention. But how hard is it to draw attention to yourself when you have something unique and new? Sure that "cube" interface was interesting--to a point. When it comes down to doing any actual work on the thing, it still boils down to the desktop. And that, ultimately, is the problem: the desktop. It's the original Xerox paradigm that was lifted by Apple and then Microsoft.</p><p>Years ago, I wrote a column complaining about this model, suggesting other workplace paradigms such as the "farm" or "airplane cockpit." They weren't much better. Someone needs to get creative.</p><p>There is no actual real world equivalent for the poke-and-slide GUI used by the best smartphones. I don't know about you, but after the novelty wears off, it's just not that exciting. Who can come up with something better? I'm betting nobody.</p><p>So here we are, sitting on a Ferrari chasis controlled by the desktop and poke-and-slide models. With a billion computer users, no one can dream up anything new? I am stunned by this creative rut.</p><p>In the mean time, poke, poke, poke, slide, slide, slide.</p><p>Skin heads are stupid, stupid people.  Just like republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Moore 's Law , semiconductor-based hardware is on a never ending treadmill of improvement .
The process ca n't be stopped or slowed down--it 's relentless .
Meanwhile , the software that sits atop this hardware does n't keep up .
I 'm not sure why , but it gets on my nerves.The treadmill is horrible .
Every computer company is forced to either upgrade constantly or lower prices ( or both ) .
Compare what you could get for $ 3,500 in 1985 with what you can get today for $ 1,000 , even factoring in inflation , R&amp;D , and the rest .
The processing power of an Intel 286 was between one and three MIPS .
Today 's Core i7s do 7,500 to 75,000 MIPS ( or more ) , depending on who is measuring .
Of course this chip is n't in a $ 1,000 box yet , but it will be soon.The fact of the matter is that the treadmill process has ironically ruined the business .
Computing power has gone from something of value to a commodity .
From 1975 to 1990 , computers were valued transformative tools .
They hit a brick wall when Windows 95 arrived , turning everyone into touchie-feelie mouse-oriented users .
The GUI was a boon to sales since it simplified computer use , but it also began the commoditization process .
After Windows 95 hit the streets , there was nothing much more to do beyond tweaking what you already had.Here is the test : Get a hold of an old machine that still runs , say , Windows 3.0 .
See if you can run a program .
The whole thing is clunky and , frankly , weird .
Now see if you can operate a Windows 95 machine .
Simple , right ?
It 's not that different from Windows Vista or Windows 7 .
The GUI I/O is pretty much the same , save for the pretty pictures and 3D icons .
The same holds true for Apple .
An OS X user should find it very easy to operate the 1984-era Macintosh .
This is not because it is inherently intuitive--it 's not .
( For further proof , watch Star Trek IV .
) You can run it easy because things have n't changed that much.The touchscreen tablets we 'll be seeing in the coming months may deliver a new paradigm--but I doubt it .
Right now it looks like we 'll be stuck with " poke-and-slide .
" But like everything else in the consumer electronics space , the underlying technologies ca n't just be old ideas that have merely been tweaked , so we end up with a desktop computing scene that is essentially old software and ideas sitting on some of the most powerful gear imaginable.It 's as though auto racing had these modern drive trains and chassis for Formula One Racing , but no one could do much more with the body beyond tweaking a 1969 VW Beetle .
And if asked to come up with a new design , no one could think of anything beyond the old model .
This is where desktop computers sit right now , and I get the sense that it 's not changing any time soon.My biggest disappointment is with the Linux community .
It could do much more than producing copycat GUIs for desktops .
Perhaps there is a fantastic and unique GUI that is buried in the noise and can not get any attention .
But how hard is it to draw attention to yourself when you have something unique and new ?
Sure that " cube " interface was interesting--to a point .
When it comes down to doing any actual work on the thing , it still boils down to the desktop .
And that , ultimately , is the problem : the desktop .
It 's the original Xerox paradigm that was lifted by Apple and then Microsoft.Years ago , I wrote a column complaining about this model , suggesting other workplace paradigms such as the " farm " or " airplane cockpit .
" They were n't much better .
Someone needs to get creative.There is no actual real world equivalent for the poke-and-slide GUI used by the best smartphones .
I do n't know about you , but after the novelty wears off , it 's just not that exciting .
Who can come up with something better ?
I 'm betting nobody.So here we are , sitting on a Ferrari chasis controlled by the desktop and poke-and-slide models .
With a billion computer users , no one can dream up anything new ?
I am stunned by this creative rut.In the mean time , poke , poke , poke , slide , slide , slide.Skin heads are stupid , stupid people .
Just like republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Moore's Law, semiconductor-based hardware is on a never ending treadmill of improvement.
The process can't be stopped or slowed down--it's relentless.
Meanwhile, the software that sits atop this hardware doesn't keep up.
I'm not sure why, but it gets on my nerves.The treadmill is horrible.
Every computer company is forced to either upgrade constantly or lower prices (or both).
Compare what you could get for $3,500 in 1985 with what you can get today for $1,000, even factoring in inflation, R&amp;D, and the rest.
The processing power of an Intel 286 was between one and three MIPS.
Today's Core i7s do 7,500 to 75,000 MIPS (or more), depending on who is measuring.
Of course this chip isn't in a $1,000 box yet, but it will be soon.The fact of the matter is that the treadmill process has ironically ruined the business.
Computing power has gone from something of value to a commodity.
From 1975 to 1990, computers were valued transformative tools.
They hit a brick wall when Windows 95 arrived, turning everyone into touchie-feelie mouse-oriented users.
The GUI was a boon to sales since it simplified computer use, but it also began the commoditization process.
After Windows 95 hit the streets, there was nothing much more to do beyond tweaking what you already had.Here is the test: Get a hold of an old machine that still runs, say, Windows 3.0.
See if you can run a program.
The whole thing is clunky and, frankly, weird.
Now see if you can operate a Windows 95 machine.
Simple, right?
It's not that different from Windows Vista or Windows 7.
The GUI I/O is pretty much the same, save for the pretty pictures and 3D icons.
The same holds true for Apple.
An OS X user should find it very easy to operate the 1984-era Macintosh.
This is not because it is inherently intuitive--it's not.
(For further proof, watch Star Trek IV.
) You can run it easy because things haven't changed that much.The touchscreen tablets we'll be seeing in the coming months may deliver a new paradigm--but I doubt it.
Right now it looks like we'll be stuck with "poke-and-slide.
" But like everything else in the consumer electronics space, the underlying technologies can't just be old ideas that have merely been tweaked, so we end up with a desktop computing scene that is essentially old software and ideas sitting on some of the most powerful gear imaginable.It's as though auto racing had these modern drive trains and chassis for Formula One Racing, but no one could do much more with the body beyond tweaking a 1969 VW Beetle.
And if asked to come up with a new design, no one could think of anything beyond the old model.
This is where desktop computers sit right now, and I get the sense that it's not changing any time soon.My biggest disappointment is with the Linux community.
It could do much more than producing copycat GUIs for desktops.
Perhaps there is a fantastic and unique GUI that is buried in the noise and cannot get any attention.
But how hard is it to draw attention to yourself when you have something unique and new?
Sure that "cube" interface was interesting--to a point.
When it comes down to doing any actual work on the thing, it still boils down to the desktop.
And that, ultimately, is the problem: the desktop.
It's the original Xerox paradigm that was lifted by Apple and then Microsoft.Years ago, I wrote a column complaining about this model, suggesting other workplace paradigms such as the "farm" or "airplane cockpit.
" They weren't much better.
Someone needs to get creative.There is no actual real world equivalent for the poke-and-slide GUI used by the best smartphones.
I don't know about you, but after the novelty wears off, it's just not that exciting.
Who can come up with something better?
I'm betting nobody.So here we are, sitting on a Ferrari chasis controlled by the desktop and poke-and-slide models.
With a billion computer users, no one can dream up anything new?
I am stunned by this creative rut.In the mean time, poke, poke, poke, slide, slide, slide.Skin heads are stupid, stupid people.
Just like republicans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31593410</id>
	<title>Vulnerable use of browser</title>
	<author>cavebison</author>
	<datestamp>1269361080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that browsers, or your email client, is only "vulnerable" when the user opens something they shouldn't (in the case of email) or browses to a malicious site, why don't they just friggin tell people that? Tell them to BE CAREFUL and what to watch out for, ie. *educate them* instead of "omg Windows/Linux has a security hole, quick turn your PC off now!"</p><p>Then again, point me to a government that doesn't treat their citizens like idiots and would prefer them to be so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that browsers , or your email client , is only " vulnerable " when the user opens something they should n't ( in the case of email ) or browses to a malicious site , why do n't they just friggin tell people that ?
Tell them to BE CAREFUL and what to watch out for , ie .
* educate them * instead of " omg Windows/Linux has a security hole , quick turn your PC off now !
" Then again , point me to a government that does n't treat their citizens like idiots and would prefer them to be so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that browsers, or your email client, is only "vulnerable" when the user opens something they shouldn't (in the case of email) or browses to a malicious site, why don't they just friggin tell people that?
Tell them to BE CAREFUL and what to watch out for, ie.
*educate them* instead of "omg Windows/Linux has a security hole, quick turn your PC off now!
"Then again, point me to a government that doesn't treat their citizens like idiots and would prefer them to be so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580262</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1269375360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>First they came for IE, and I didn't speak up because I didn't use IE.
<br>
<br>
Then they came for Firefox, and I didn't speak up because I didn't use Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First they came for IE , and I did n't speak up because I did n't use IE .
Then they came for Firefox , and I did n't speak up because I did n't use Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they came for IE, and I didn't speak up because I didn't use IE.
Then they came for Firefox, and I didn't speak up because I didn't use Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580974</id>
	<title>time to introduce automatic downgrades as well?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269342240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In terms of security, might this be a reason to also allow for automatic downgrades through the software 'update' manager?</p><p>if version 3.6 has a big security issue, and no newer version is available, wouldn't it be good if mozilla could similar to how they show an upgrade, also present users with a warning, 'there is a problem in your current 3.6, we would like to temporarily downgrade your browser back to 3.5.x' and with the users agreement automatically downgrade the software again.</p><p>Obviously, this would also mean that the update checks would need to have an idea what the latest 'safe' version is, as opposed to the absolute latest version.</p><p>Such automation might help to buy authors some time to properly fix an issue.</p><p>(Yes, prior version may have security issues of their own - so it's not that I would say always fall back further and further; but if there is a big problem in one version, and prior releases do not have any know major problems, then fall back.  Also, for anyone still on 3.5, it would be good if the update check would not even show 3.6 as available, once the authors flag that version is problematic).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of security , might this be a reason to also allow for automatic downgrades through the software 'update ' manager ? if version 3.6 has a big security issue , and no newer version is available , would n't it be good if mozilla could similar to how they show an upgrade , also present users with a warning , 'there is a problem in your current 3.6 , we would like to temporarily downgrade your browser back to 3.5.x ' and with the users agreement automatically downgrade the software again.Obviously , this would also mean that the update checks would need to have an idea what the latest 'safe ' version is , as opposed to the absolute latest version.Such automation might help to buy authors some time to properly fix an issue .
( Yes , prior version may have security issues of their own - so it 's not that I would say always fall back further and further ; but if there is a big problem in one version , and prior releases do not have any know major problems , then fall back .
Also , for anyone still on 3.5 , it would be good if the update check would not even show 3.6 as available , once the authors flag that version is problematic ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of security, might this be a reason to also allow for automatic downgrades through the software 'update' manager?if version 3.6 has a big security issue, and no newer version is available, wouldn't it be good if mozilla could similar to how they show an upgrade, also present users with a warning, 'there is a problem in your current 3.6, we would like to temporarily downgrade your browser back to 3.5.x' and with the users agreement automatically downgrade the software again.Obviously, this would also mean that the update checks would need to have an idea what the latest 'safe' version is, as opposed to the absolute latest version.Such automation might help to buy authors some time to properly fix an issue.
(Yes, prior version may have security issues of their own - so it's not that I would say always fall back further and further; but if there is a big problem in one version, and prior releases do not have any know major problems, then fall back.
Also, for anyone still on 3.5, it would be good if the update check would not even show 3.6 as available, once the authors flag that version is problematic).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582350</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269353880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. When it's about Firefox it doesn't matter because "exploit" does not equate to "malware in the wild".</p><p>That's a very important distinction that the Lemmings like to gloss over in order to prop up their sorry egos. They seem to want their market leader pet product to be something other than the absolute worst on the market. The "it's better than the crap from Microsoft" rhetoric doesn't just apply to Firefox. It also applies to Opera and Safari and to Linux and MacOS in general.</p><p>It helps when you avoid doing things that the professional community has already branded as dangerous and troublesome.</p><p>One CNN report of Windows running amok with the latest virus is worth 1000 bug reports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
When it 's about Firefox it does n't matter because " exploit " does not equate to " malware in the wild " .That 's a very important distinction that the Lemmings like to gloss over in order to prop up their sorry egos .
They seem to want their market leader pet product to be something other than the absolute worst on the market .
The " it 's better than the crap from Microsoft " rhetoric does n't just apply to Firefox .
It also applies to Opera and Safari and to Linux and MacOS in general.It helps when you avoid doing things that the professional community has already branded as dangerous and troublesome.One CNN report of Windows running amok with the latest virus is worth 1000 bug reports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
When it's about Firefox it doesn't matter because "exploit" does not equate to "malware in the wild".That's a very important distinction that the Lemmings like to gloss over in order to prop up their sorry egos.
They seem to want their market leader pet product to be something other than the absolute worst on the market.
The "it's better than the crap from Microsoft" rhetoric doesn't just apply to Firefox.
It also applies to Opera and Safari and to Linux and MacOS in general.It helps when you avoid doing things that the professional community has already branded as dangerous and troublesome.One CNN report of Windows running amok with the latest virus is worth 1000 bug reports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580306</id>
	<title>Google Chrome.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269376260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It rocks.  Just sayin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It rocks .
Just sayin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It rocks.
Just sayin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580342</id>
	<title>Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269376860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3.6.2 released</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3.6.2 released</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.6.2 released</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580918</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269341640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because "don't set this place on fire" is not a fire escape plan. Bugs and vulnerabilities will happen either way, and you still need a plan for dealing with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because " do n't set this place on fire " is not a fire escape plan .
Bugs and vulnerabilities will happen either way , and you still need a plan for dealing with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because "don't set this place on fire" is not a fire escape plan.
Bugs and vulnerabilities will happen either way, and you still need a plan for dealing with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31583054</id>
	<title>Germany warns against using internet... (eom)</title>
	<author>ukemike</author>
	<datestamp>1269356640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Germany warns against using internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Germany warns against using internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Germany warns against using internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581198</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269344940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a group of Haskell programmers perhaps? Or a bunch of Eiffel enthusiasts? Ada experts? Or anyone who uses any of the other 1000+ halfway safe languages out there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a group of Haskell programmers perhaps ?
Or a bunch of Eiffel enthusiasts ?
Ada experts ?
Or anyone who uses any of the other 1000 + halfway safe languages out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a group of Haskell programmers perhaps?
Or a bunch of Eiffel enthusiasts?
Ada experts?
Or anyone who uses any of the other 1000+ halfway safe languages out there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581460</id>
	<title>Against Opera? I think not (see inside)... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269347640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above - &amp; also, note this report from SECUNIA + benchmarks results which have favored Opera on ALL LEVELS for years (9/10 times):</p><p>----</p><p><b>Vulnerability Report: Opera 10.x:</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>Unpatched 0\% (0 of 5 Secunia advisories)</p><p>----</p><p><b>Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE, here:</b></p><p><a href="http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/" title="opera.com" rel="nofollow">http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/</a> [opera.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED, at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well, consistently &amp; for years, no less!</b></p><p>Per latest:</p><p>1.) SunSpider tests done here recently -&gt; <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087" title="pcpro.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087</a> [pcpro.co.uk]</p><p>2.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, &amp; FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -&gt; <a href="http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win" title="howtocreate.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win</a> [howtocreate.co.uk] and this one too last year also -&gt; <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm" title="cnet.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm</a> [cnet.co.uk]</p><p>("Beat that with a stick" as the saying goes!)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool, as far as browser features, &amp; first (e,g, - tabbed browsing anyone), &amp; it contains features you cannot get in FireFox &amp; IE natively (i.e - without addons (such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website, or not (javascript IS what gets you people all "hit" by these online attacks, 9/10 times (literally, it's the "main delivery mechanism" of MOST online attacks, &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much, easily))))... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above - &amp; also , note this report from SECUNIA + benchmarks results which have favored Opera on ALL LEVELS for years ( 9/10 times ) : ----Vulnerability Report : Opera 10.x : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/ [ secunia.com ] Unpatched 0 \ % ( 0 of 5 Secunia advisories ) ----Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE , here : http : //my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ [ opera.com ] ----OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED , at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well , consistently &amp; for years , no less ! Per latest : 1 .
) SunSpider tests done here recently - &gt; http : //www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 [ pcpro.co.uk ] 2 .
) AND IT HAS BEEN " BLOWING AWAY " FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL , &amp; FOR YEARS NOW , per this test years ago - &gt; http : //www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html # win [ howtocreate.co.uk ] and this one too last year also - &gt; http : //crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm [ cnet.co.uk ] ( " Beat that with a stick " as the saying goes !
) APKP.S. = &gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool , as far as browser features , &amp; first ( e,g , - tabbed browsing anyone ) , &amp; it contains features you can not get in FireFox &amp; IE natively ( i.e - without addons ( such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website , or not ( javascript IS what gets you people all " hit " by these online attacks , 9/10 times ( literally , it 's the " main delivery mechanism " of MOST online attacks , &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much , easily ) ) ) ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above - &amp; also, note this report from SECUNIA + benchmarks results which have favored Opera on ALL LEVELS for years (9/10 times):----Vulnerability Report: Opera 10.x:http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/ [secunia.com]Unpatched 0\% (0 of 5 Secunia advisories)----Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE, here:http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ [opera.com]----OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED, at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well, consistently &amp; for years, no less!Per latest:1.
) SunSpider tests done here recently -&gt; http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 [pcpro.co.uk]2.
) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, &amp; FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -&gt; http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win [howtocreate.co.uk] and this one too last year also -&gt; http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm [cnet.co.uk]("Beat that with a stick" as the saying goes!
)APKP.S.=&gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool, as far as browser features, &amp; first (e,g, - tabbed browsing anyone), &amp; it contains features you cannot get in FireFox &amp; IE natively (i.e - without addons (such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website, or not (javascript IS what gets you people all "hit" by these online attacks, 9/10 times (literally, it's the "main delivery mechanism" of MOST online attacks, &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much, easily))))... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580294</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269376020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right. Find me a group of programmers that can write an entire web browser without any flaws or exploits, while having all the features everyone wants.

Yeah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Find me a group of programmers that can write an entire web browser without any flaws or exploits , while having all the features everyone wants .
Yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Find me a group of programmers that can write an entire web browser without any flaws or exploits, while having all the features everyone wants.
Yeah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580526</id>
	<title>Government Warns against Using the Internet</title>
	<author>Liambp</author>
	<datestamp>1269336660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Government warned today issued a warning against using the internet because of security issues.</p><p>The office for Information Security reported the discovery of a major flaw that allows bad people to use the internet too. Citing incidents of users who have already been spammed, scammed, hacked, phished, botted, keylogged and otherwise abused the office has issued a strong recommendation to stop using the web altogether until this vulnerability is patched.</p><p>It is as yet unclear whether these exploits will be patched in the pending release of Web 2.1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government warned today issued a warning against using the internet because of security issues.The office for Information Security reported the discovery of a major flaw that allows bad people to use the internet too .
Citing incidents of users who have already been spammed , scammed , hacked , phished , botted , keylogged and otherwise abused the office has issued a strong recommendation to stop using the web altogether until this vulnerability is patched.It is as yet unclear whether these exploits will be patched in the pending release of Web 2.1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government warned today issued a warning against using the internet because of security issues.The office for Information Security reported the discovery of a major flaw that allows bad people to use the internet too.
Citing incidents of users who have already been spammed, scammed, hacked, phished, botted, keylogged and otherwise abused the office has issued a strong recommendation to stop using the web altogether until this vulnerability is patched.It is as yet unclear whether these exploits will be patched in the pending release of Web 2.1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580372</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Zontar The Mindless</author>
	<datestamp>1269377460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with.</p></div><p>And I want Anonymous Cowards to start making<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posts that are insightful, useful, and realistic.</p><p>And WHERE'S MY PONY?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with.And I want Anonymous Cowards to start making / .
posts that are insightful , useful , and realistic.And WHERE 'S MY PONY ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with.And I want Anonymous Cowards to start making /.
posts that are insightful, useful, and realistic.And WHERE'S MY PONY?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582472</id>
	<title>The BSI is not the Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269354420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article implies that Germany (meaning the government) has issued a warning. However, the BSI (Bundesamt f&#252;r Sicherheit in der Informationtechnik (engl. Federal Agency for Safety and Security in Information Technology)) warned about an issue in firefox. So the BSI does the same job as CERT, they warn about security issues. It is not that the government made a law or a ruling or any other governmental thing. BTW: The same thing applies to the IE problem. And if there is a problem with Safari or Opera or Lynx or Telnet or any other browser you can think of then they will warn about it.</p><p>As Firefox is the most used browser in Germany, it is really important that the BSI warns people about any issue.</p><p>(I appologize for any inconvenience due to misuse of prepositions and articles in this post)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article implies that Germany ( meaning the government ) has issued a warning .
However , the BSI ( Bundesamt f   r Sicherheit in der Informationtechnik ( engl .
Federal Agency for Safety and Security in Information Technology ) ) warned about an issue in firefox .
So the BSI does the same job as CERT , they warn about security issues .
It is not that the government made a law or a ruling or any other governmental thing .
BTW : The same thing applies to the IE problem .
And if there is a problem with Safari or Opera or Lynx or Telnet or any other browser you can think of then they will warn about it.As Firefox is the most used browser in Germany , it is really important that the BSI warns people about any issue .
( I appologize for any inconvenience due to misuse of prepositions and articles in this post )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article implies that Germany (meaning the government) has issued a warning.
However, the BSI (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationtechnik (engl.
Federal Agency for Safety and Security in Information Technology)) warned about an issue in firefox.
So the BSI does the same job as CERT, they warn about security issues.
It is not that the government made a law or a ruling or any other governmental thing.
BTW: The same thing applies to the IE problem.
And if there is a problem with Safari or Opera or Lynx or Telnet or any other browser you can think of then they will warn about it.As Firefox is the most used browser in Germany, it is really important that the BSI warns people about any issue.
(I appologize for any inconvenience due to misuse of prepositions and articles in this post)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581900</id>
	<title>working exploit</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1269351360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a link to a working exploit ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a link to a working exploit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a link to a working exploit ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31601778</id>
	<title>No IE, no FF, what do they recommend? Opera? lynx?</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1269460980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they don't recommend all (2) of the major browsers, what browsers are they using / do they recommend?</p><p>Pray tell?</p><p>This sounds like FUD to stay off the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't recommend all ( 2 ) of the major browsers , what browsers are they using / do they recommend ? Pray tell ? This sounds like FUD to stay off the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't recommend all (2) of the major browsers, what browsers are they using / do they recommend?Pray tell?This sounds like FUD to stay off the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128</id>
	<title>3.6.2 released</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582092</id>
	<title>Re:3.6.2 released</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269352440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for that info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for that info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for that info.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31586136</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>MasseKid</author>
	<datestamp>1269368520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps you should have built your building with asbestos and then you wouldn't have fire problems?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you should have built your building with asbestos and then you would n't have fire problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you should have built your building with asbestos and then you wouldn't have fire problems?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582250</id>
	<title>Re:Good news for free software</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1269353280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the BBC (not quite a geek-oriented news source) makes no mention at all<br>&gt; of Firefox being FLOSS.</p><p>Probably because they don't know.  To them it is a product of Mozilla, Inc, one of several companies that offer "alternative" browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...the BBC ( not quite a geek-oriented news source ) makes no mention at all &gt; of Firefox being FLOSS.Probably because they do n't know .
To them it is a product of Mozilla , Inc , one of several companies that offer " alternative " browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...the BBC (not quite a geek-oriented news source) makes no mention at all&gt; of Firefox being FLOSS.Probably because they don't know.
To them it is a product of Mozilla, Inc, one of several companies that offer "alternative" browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580548</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269337080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you require HTML and CSS compatibility?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you require HTML and CSS compatibility ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you require HTML and CSS compatibility?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580426</id>
	<title>Good news for free software</title>
	<author>doublegauss</author>
	<datestamp>1269335220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Contrary to Slashdot etiquette, I did read TFA. To me, the most extraordinary piece of news is that the BBC (not quite a geek-oriented news source) makes no mention at all of Firefox being FLOSS. This is <i>excellent</i> news. It means becoming mainstream. The Gandhi quote springs to mind.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrary to Slashdot etiquette , I did read TFA .
To me , the most extraordinary piece of news is that the BBC ( not quite a geek-oriented news source ) makes no mention at all of Firefox being FLOSS .
This is excellent news .
It means becoming mainstream .
The Gandhi quote springs to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrary to Slashdot etiquette, I did read TFA.
To me, the most extraordinary piece of news is that the BBC (not quite a geek-oriented news source) makes no mention at all of Firefox being FLOSS.
This is excellent news.
It means becoming mainstream.
The Gandhi quote springs to mind.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582030</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269352080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your Hyperbole is noted. Nevertheless, there are FOSS programmers out there who work to prevent/fix exploits.  Similarly, there are Anonymous cowards out there who relish posting insightful comments (though they may be rare and few).</p><p>For the record, Shetland ponies originated in the the Shetland Islands, far north of the Scottish mainland. For many centuries Shetland ponies lived in the open, with only their thick hair to protect them from the elements.  If you go there, you will find your pony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Hyperbole is noted .
Nevertheless , there are FOSS programmers out there who work to prevent/fix exploits .
Similarly , there are Anonymous cowards out there who relish posting insightful comments ( though they may be rare and few ) .For the record , Shetland ponies originated in the the Shetland Islands , far north of the Scottish mainland .
For many centuries Shetland ponies lived in the open , with only their thick hair to protect them from the elements .
If you go there , you will find your pony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Hyperbole is noted.
Nevertheless, there are FOSS programmers out there who work to prevent/fix exploits.
Similarly, there are Anonymous cowards out there who relish posting insightful comments (though they may be rare and few).For the record, Shetland ponies originated in the the Shetland Islands, far north of the Scottish mainland.
For many centuries Shetland ponies lived in the open, with only their thick hair to protect them from the elements.
If you go there, you will find your pony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581472</id>
	<title>They never "came for Opera", &amp; here's why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269347820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above - &amp; also, note this report from SECUNIA:</p><p>----</p><p><b>Vulnerability Report: Opera 10.x:</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>Unpatched 0\% (0 of 5 Secunia advisories)</p><p>----</p><p><b>Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE, here:</b></p><p><a href="http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/" title="opera.com" rel="nofollow">http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/</a> [opera.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED, at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well, consistently &amp; for years, no less!</b></p><p>Per these tests, &amp; consistently, for years now no less:</p><p>1.) SunSpider tests done here recently -&gt; <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087" title="pcpro.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087</a> [pcpro.co.uk]</p><p>2.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, &amp; FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -&gt; <a href="http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win" title="howtocreate.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win</a> [howtocreate.co.uk] and this one too last year also -&gt; <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm" title="cnet.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm</a> [cnet.co.uk]</p><p>("Beat that with a stick", as the saying goes!)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool, as far as browser features, &amp; first (e,g, - tabbed browsing anyone), &amp; it contains features you cannot get in FireFox &amp; IE natively (i.e - without addons (such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website, or not (javascript IS what gets you people all "hit" by these online attacks, 9/10 times (literally, it's the "main delivery mechanism" of MOST online attacks, &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much, easily))))... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above - &amp; also , note this report from SECUNIA : ----Vulnerability Report : Opera 10.x : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/ [ secunia.com ] Unpatched 0 \ % ( 0 of 5 Secunia advisories ) ----Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE , here : http : //my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ [ opera.com ] ----OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED , at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well , consistently &amp; for years , no less ! Per these tests , &amp; consistently , for years now no less : 1 .
) SunSpider tests done here recently - &gt; http : //www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 [ pcpro.co.uk ] 2 .
) AND IT HAS BEEN " BLOWING AWAY " FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL , &amp; FOR YEARS NOW , per this test years ago - &gt; http : //www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html # win [ howtocreate.co.uk ] and this one too last year also - &gt; http : //crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm [ cnet.co.uk ] ( " Beat that with a stick " , as the saying goes !
) APKP.S. = &gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool , as far as browser features , &amp; first ( e,g , - tabbed browsing anyone ) , &amp; it contains features you can not get in FireFox &amp; IE natively ( i.e - without addons ( such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website , or not ( javascript IS what gets you people all " hit " by these online attacks , 9/10 times ( literally , it 's the " main delivery mechanism " of MOST online attacks , &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much , easily ) ) ) ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above - &amp; also, note this report from SECUNIA:----Vulnerability Report: Opera 10.x:http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/ [secunia.com]Unpatched 0\% (0 of 5 Secunia advisories)----Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE, here:http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ [opera.com]----OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED, at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well, consistently &amp; for years, no less!Per these tests, &amp; consistently, for years now no less:1.
) SunSpider tests done here recently -&gt; http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 [pcpro.co.uk]2.
) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, &amp; FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -&gt; http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win [howtocreate.co.uk] and this one too last year also -&gt; http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm [cnet.co.uk]("Beat that with a stick", as the saying goes!
)APKP.S.=&gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool, as far as browser features, &amp; first (e,g, - tabbed browsing anyone), &amp; it contains features you cannot get in FireFox &amp; IE natively (i.e - without addons (such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website, or not (javascript IS what gets you people all "hit" by these online attacks, 9/10 times (literally, it's the "main delivery mechanism" of MOST online attacks, &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much, easily))))... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580492</id>
	<title>Re:Google Chrome.</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1269336300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you'll find that Chrome's record with regards security is no better than IE8 or FF.</p><p>Also, as far as rocking, I still can't get over the way it rides roughshod over installation standards and copies program files to your user profile.  Until they get that sorted I won't touch it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find that Chrome 's record with regards security is no better than IE8 or FF.Also , as far as rocking , I still ca n't get over the way it rides roughshod over installation standards and copies program files to your user profile .
Until they get that sorted I wo n't touch it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find that Chrome's record with regards security is no better than IE8 or FF.Also, as far as rocking, I still can't get over the way it rides roughshod over installation standards and copies program files to your user profile.
Until they get that sorted I won't touch it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580762</id>
	<title>Re:And the risk is???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269339660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I'm reading this correctly</p></div><p>It seems to me like you're not reading much, you just like the sound of your own posts. If you read the bug report http://secunia.com/advisories/38608 or Mozilla blog http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/03/18/update-on-secunia-advisory-sa38608, it clearly states that this particular exploit could result in remote code execution by an attacker.</p><p>It's a buffer overflow exploit, simple as. You should add "buffer overflow exploit" to your vocabulary, right beside SQL Injection Attack. Seems to me you don't know much about security, but love to spout on about vulnerabilities like your an expert.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm reading this correctlyIt seems to me like you 're not reading much , you just like the sound of your own posts .
If you read the bug report http : //secunia.com/advisories/38608 or Mozilla blog http : //blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/03/18/update-on-secunia-advisory-sa38608 , it clearly states that this particular exploit could result in remote code execution by an attacker.It 's a buffer overflow exploit , simple as .
You should add " buffer overflow exploit " to your vocabulary , right beside SQL Injection Attack .
Seems to me you do n't know much about security , but love to spout on about vulnerabilities like your an expert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm reading this correctlyIt seems to me like you're not reading much, you just like the sound of your own posts.
If you read the bug report http://secunia.com/advisories/38608 or Mozilla blog http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/03/18/update-on-secunia-advisory-sa38608, it clearly states that this particular exploit could result in remote code execution by an attacker.It's a buffer overflow exploit, simple as.
You should add "buffer overflow exploit" to your vocabulary, right beside SQL Injection Attack.
Seems to me you don't know much about security, but love to spout on about vulnerabilities like your an expert.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582524</id>
	<title>I wonder how many..</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1269354540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more security exploits, crashes, slow and bloated browsing experiences Firefox users have ot put up with, before they seek out better alternatives like Opera?</p><p>Just wondering.  Or are those pains part and parcel of supporting American or OpenSource products?  You take those problems with it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more security exploits , crashes , slow and bloated browsing experiences Firefox users have ot put up with , before they seek out better alternatives like Opera ? Just wondering .
Or are those pains part and parcel of supporting American or OpenSource products ?
You take those problems with it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more security exploits, crashes, slow and bloated browsing experiences Firefox users have ot put up with, before they seek out better alternatives like Opera?Just wondering.
Or are those pains part and parcel of supporting American or OpenSource products?
You take those problems with it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31587578</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1269373620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A sad day on Slashdot when someone saying "programming correctly is the right response" and he's ridiculed by at least 4 replies and modded +3 Funny.  What the hell happened to this place?</p></div><p>Life experience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A sad day on Slashdot when someone saying " programming correctly is the right response " and he 's ridiculed by at least 4 replies and modded + 3 Funny .
What the hell happened to this place ? Life experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A sad day on Slashdot when someone saying "programming correctly is the right response" and he's ridiculed by at least 4 replies and modded +3 Funny.
What the hell happened to this place?Life experience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582176</id>
	<title>Firefox version 3.6.2 already out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269352920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; the warning (from the Federal Office for Information Security) is provisional, and should be rendered moot by the release later this month of 3.6.2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>This version (3.6) prompted for update and now says verson 3.6.2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the warning ( from the Federal Office for Information Security ) is provisional , and should be rendered moot by the release later this month of 3.6.2 ..This version ( 3.6 ) prompted for update and now says verson 3.6.2 . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; the warning (from the Federal Office for Information Security) is provisional, and should be rendered moot by the release later this month of 3.6.2 ..This version (3.6) prompted for update and now says verson 3.6.2 ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31592976</id>
	<title>Re:3.6.2 released</title>
	<author>execthis</author>
	<datestamp>1269357600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just have one question:  Why, if Mozilla were about to release this new update, did not the German gov't at least give them the courtesy of a phone call or something (even a ping on a mailing list or something) saying "Hey guys, we're about to recommend to our 60 million citizens that they stop using your browser" to which Mozilla could have replied "Can you guys wait another few hours?"</p><p>I understand if your job as an agency is to protect consumers from harm but the whole point of Open Source is collaborative effort which strengthens projects and creates improvements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just have one question : Why , if Mozilla were about to release this new update , did not the German gov't at least give them the courtesy of a phone call or something ( even a ping on a mailing list or something ) saying " Hey guys , we 're about to recommend to our 60 million citizens that they stop using your browser " to which Mozilla could have replied " Can you guys wait another few hours ?
" I understand if your job as an agency is to protect consumers from harm but the whole point of Open Source is collaborative effort which strengthens projects and creates improvements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just have one question:  Why, if Mozilla were about to release this new update, did not the German gov't at least give them the courtesy of a phone call or something (even a ping on a mailing list or something) saying "Hey guys, we're about to recommend to our 60 million citizens that they stop using your browser" to which Mozilla could have replied "Can you guys wait another few hours?
"I understand if your job as an agency is to protect consumers from harm but the whole point of Open Source is collaborative effort which strengthens projects and creates improvements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580752</id>
	<title>Update the summary - 3.6.2 already released</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269339540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Update the summary. Firefox 3.6.2 is already released and there's no reason to stop using Firefox. Update to latest version and that's it.</p><p>Power of free software.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Update the summary .
Firefox 3.6.2 is already released and there 's no reason to stop using Firefox .
Update to latest version and that 's it.Power of free software .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Update the summary.
Firefox 3.6.2 is already released and there's no reason to stop using Firefox.
Update to latest version and that's it.Power of free software.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31583860</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1269360060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes they are safe by default just like a car with its wheels, engine and battery "disabled" by default is safe from most carjackers.</p></div><p>But they have a safe chassis. If you only look at the code involved in the default setup (hell, just the kernel), it's still <b>way</b> more than Firefox.</p><p>See? This is what I'm talking about. With all the work they do, this is all the respect they get. Give credit where credit is due: the parts they <b>say</b> is secure, <b>is</b> secure, and that's more than I can say for most software projects.</p><p>Let me ask you something: how many software project do you know where for each bug they find, they comb over the whole code base for the same type of bug? How many serious security flaws did they avoid by doing that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes they are safe by default just like a car with its wheels , engine and battery " disabled " by default is safe from most carjackers.But they have a safe chassis .
If you only look at the code involved in the default setup ( hell , just the kernel ) , it 's still way more than Firefox.See ?
This is what I 'm talking about .
With all the work they do , this is all the respect they get .
Give credit where credit is due : the parts they say is secure , is secure , and that 's more than I can say for most software projects.Let me ask you something : how many software project do you know where for each bug they find , they comb over the whole code base for the same type of bug ?
How many serious security flaws did they avoid by doing that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes they are safe by default just like a car with its wheels, engine and battery "disabled" by default is safe from most carjackers.But they have a safe chassis.
If you only look at the code involved in the default setup (hell, just the kernel), it's still way more than Firefox.See?
This is what I'm talking about.
With all the work they do, this is all the respect they get.
Give credit where credit is due: the parts they say is secure, is secure, and that's more than I can say for most software projects.Let me ask you something: how many software project do you know where for each bug they find, they comb over the whole code base for the same type of bug?
How many serious security flaws did they avoid by doing that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582100</id>
	<title>Re:And the risk is???</title>
	<author>Silfax</author>
	<datestamp>1269352500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I'm reading this correctly, the vulnerability is in WOFF fonts (what is a WOFF font?)</p></div><p> <b>W</b>orks <b>O</b>n <b>F</b>ire<b>F</b>ox ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm reading this correctly , the vulnerability is in WOFF fonts ( what is a WOFF font ?
) Works On FireFox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm reading this correctly, the vulnerability is in WOFF fonts (what is a WOFF font?
) Works On FireFox ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580376</id>
	<title>Beta/Nightly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269377460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely anyone who is concerned about this vulnerability could simply run one of the nightly builds until the official update is released?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely anyone who is concerned about this vulnerability could simply run one of the nightly builds until the official update is released ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely anyone who is concerned about this vulnerability could simply run one of the nightly builds until the official update is released?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31584996</id>
	<title>Re:What's up with /. ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269364560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, the "editors" are doing their usual sterling job. 3.6.2 had shipped by the time this was posted (zero fact checking), and despite several people replying to that effect within minutes of the post going live, the sentence containing the reference to 3.6.2 was edited four hours later. It *still* says 3.6.2 will ship "later this month."</p><p>It's shipped people. The story has now evaporated.</p><p>But, if it makes you feel better you can go on whining about how Mozilla failed to find an exploit when the sum total of information available was "I haz a 0day. Ha-ha."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the " editors " are doing their usual sterling job .
3.6.2 had shipped by the time this was posted ( zero fact checking ) , and despite several people replying to that effect within minutes of the post going live , the sentence containing the reference to 3.6.2 was edited four hours later .
It * still * says 3.6.2 will ship " later this month .
" It 's shipped people .
The story has now evaporated.But , if it makes you feel better you can go on whining about how Mozilla failed to find an exploit when the sum total of information available was " I haz a 0day .
Ha-ha. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the "editors" are doing their usual sterling job.
3.6.2 had shipped by the time this was posted (zero fact checking), and despite several people replying to that effect within minutes of the post going live, the sentence containing the reference to 3.6.2 was edited four hours later.
It *still* says 3.6.2 will ship "later this month.
"It's shipped people.
The story has now evaporated.But, if it makes you feel better you can go on whining about how Mozilla failed to find an exploit when the sum total of information available was "I haz a 0day.
Ha-ha."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580316</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>ipquickly</author>
	<datestamp>1269376380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with</p></div><p>And I want world peace.</p><p>Now which is more attainable? It all comes down to us-meatbags.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin withAnd I want world peace.Now which is more attainable ?
It all comes down to us-meatbags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin withAnd I want world peace.Now which is more attainable?
It all comes down to us-meatbags.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581078</id>
	<title>The answer is obvious</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1269343680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every browser is flawed. It's the internet that is insecure.</p><p>Next headline: "German government warns against using the Internet."</p><p>We're just crazy, though at least not as crazy as China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every browser is flawed .
It 's the internet that is insecure.Next headline : " German government warns against using the Internet .
" We 're just crazy , though at least not as crazy as China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every browser is flawed.
It's the internet that is insecure.Next headline: "German government warns against using the Internet.
"We're just crazy, though at least not as crazy as China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581736</id>
	<title>Why doesn't...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269350460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...unchecking "Allow pages to choose their own fonts" block this?</p><p>(Or "Stop using Microsoft Windows", but I won't mention that.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...unchecking " Allow pages to choose their own fonts " block this ?
( Or " Stop using Microsoft Windows " , but I wo n't mention that .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...unchecking "Allow pages to choose their own fonts" block this?
(Or "Stop using Microsoft Windows", but I won't mention that.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1269335820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A sad day on Slashdot when someone saying "programming correctly is the right response" and he's ridiculed by at least 4 replies and modded +3 Funny.  What the hell happened to this place?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A sad day on Slashdot when someone saying " programming correctly is the right response " and he 's ridiculed by at least 4 replies and modded + 3 Funny .
What the hell happened to this place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A sad day on Slashdot when someone saying "programming correctly is the right response" and he's ridiculed by at least 4 replies and modded +3 Funny.
What the hell happened to this place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580868</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1269341220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A sad day on Slashdot when someone saying "programming correctly is the right response" and he's ridiculed by at least 4 replies and modded +3 Funny.  What the hell happened to this place?</p></div><p>It's the blind fanboyism. When it's about Firefox it doesn't matter because they patched it! (ignoring the fact that it <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9173918/Critical\_Firefox\_bug\_fixed\_one\_month\_after\_disclosure" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">took them a month</a> [computerworld.com] and were constantly under pressure to do it). But when it's about Microsoft, <i>then</i> they should had got it correctly in the first place and no one will *ever* use Windows again because of this!</p><p>Some people here really seem to lack objective thinking and are blindfolded by their fanfare.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A sad day on Slashdot when someone saying " programming correctly is the right response " and he 's ridiculed by at least 4 replies and modded + 3 Funny .
What the hell happened to this place ? It 's the blind fanboyism .
When it 's about Firefox it does n't matter because they patched it !
( ignoring the fact that it took them a month [ computerworld.com ] and were constantly under pressure to do it ) .
But when it 's about Microsoft , then they should had got it correctly in the first place and no one will * ever * use Windows again because of this ! Some people here really seem to lack objective thinking and are blindfolded by their fanfare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A sad day on Slashdot when someone saying "programming correctly is the right response" and he's ridiculed by at least 4 replies and modded +3 Funny.
What the hell happened to this place?It's the blind fanboyism.
When it's about Firefox it doesn't matter because they patched it!
(ignoring the fact that it took them a month [computerworld.com] and were constantly under pressure to do it).
But when it's about Microsoft, then they should had got it correctly in the first place and no one will *ever* use Windows again because of this!Some people here really seem to lack objective thinking and are blindfolded by their fanfare.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580536</id>
	<title>in other news</title>
	<author>alienzed</author>
	<datestamp>1269336780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China just plain doesn't want anyone using the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China just plain does n't want anyone using the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China just plain doesn't want anyone using the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580820</id>
	<title>And this is why I use IE</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1269340500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla clearly have no idea about.......<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....wait a minute....it's not a Microsoft product we're talking about?!</p><p>THIS IS SUCH A NON ISSUE! The German government are clearly over-reacting here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla clearly have no idea about....... ....wait a minute....it 's not a Microsoft product we 're talking about ?
! THIS IS SUCH A NON ISSUE !
The German government are clearly over-reacting here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla clearly have no idea about....... ....wait a minute....it's not a Microsoft product we're talking about?
!THIS IS SUCH A NON ISSUE!
The German government are clearly over-reacting here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580774</id>
	<title>Re:And the risk is???</title>
	<author>ewrong</author>
	<datestamp>1269339720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A WOFF font is a Web Open Font Format font.</p><p> <a href="http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/10/woff/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/10/woff/</a> [mozilla.org] </p><p>It's basically an extension of the @font-face rule with it's own compression and meta tagging. Please don't tell my designers about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A WOFF font is a Web Open Font Format font .
http : //hacks.mozilla.org/2009/10/woff/ [ mozilla.org ] It 's basically an extension of the @ font-face rule with it 's own compression and meta tagging .
Please do n't tell my designers about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A WOFF font is a Web Open Font Format font.
http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/10/woff/ [mozilla.org] It's basically an extension of the @font-face rule with it's own compression and meta tagging.
Please don't tell my designers about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269374940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a really poor standard you have. I don't want software that patches exploits quickly, I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a really poor standard you have .
I do n't want software that patches exploits quickly , I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a really poor standard you have.
I don't want software that patches exploits quickly, I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581390</id>
	<title>OK: Some facts then (about Opera speed &amp; secur</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269346860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above, &amp; also, note this report from SECUNIA:</p><p>----</p><p><b>Vulnerability Report: Opera 10.x:</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>Unpatched 0\% (0 of 5 Secunia advisories)</p><p>----</p><p><b>Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE, here:</b></p><p><a href="http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/" title="opera.com" rel="nofollow">http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/</a> [opera.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED, at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well, consistently &amp; for years, no less!</b></p><p>Per latest:</p><p>1.) SunSpider tests done here recently -&gt; <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087" title="pcpro.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087</a> [pcpro.co.uk]</p><p>2.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, &amp; FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -&gt; <a href="http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win" title="howtocreate.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win</a> [howtocreate.co.uk] and this one too last year also -&gt; <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm" title="cnet.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm</a> [cnet.co.uk]</p><p>("Beat that with a stick", as the saying goes!)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool, as far as browser features, &amp; first (e,g, - tabbed browsing anyone), &amp; it contains features you cannot get in FireFox &amp; IE natively (i.e - without addons (such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website, or not (javascript IS what gets you people all "hit" by these online attacks, &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much, easily)))... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above , &amp; also , note this report from SECUNIA : ----Vulnerability Report : Opera 10.x : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/ [ secunia.com ] Unpatched 0 \ % ( 0 of 5 Secunia advisories ) ----Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE , here : http : //my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ [ opera.com ] ----OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED , at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well , consistently &amp; for years , no less ! Per latest : 1 .
) SunSpider tests done here recently - &gt; http : //www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 [ pcpro.co.uk ] 2 .
) AND IT HAS BEEN " BLOWING AWAY " FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL , &amp; FOR YEARS NOW , per this test years ago - &gt; http : //www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html # win [ howtocreate.co.uk ] and this one too last year also - &gt; http : //crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm [ cnet.co.uk ] ( " Beat that with a stick " , as the saying goes !
) APKP.S. = &gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool , as far as browser features , &amp; first ( e,g , - tabbed browsing anyone ) , &amp; it contains features you can not get in FireFox &amp; IE natively ( i.e - without addons ( such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website , or not ( javascript IS what gets you people all " hit " by these online attacks , &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much , easily ) ) ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above, &amp; also, note this report from SECUNIA:----Vulnerability Report: Opera 10.x:http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/ [secunia.com]Unpatched 0\% (0 of 5 Secunia advisories)----Download Opera 10.51 FINAL RELEASE, here:http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ [opera.com]----OPERA ALSO SURPASSES FIREFOX IN BROWSING SPEED, at BOTH the javascript processing &amp; HTML processing/parsing speeds levels as well, consistently &amp; for years, no less!Per latest:1.
) SunSpider tests done here recently -&gt; http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 [pcpro.co.uk]2.
) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, &amp; FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -&gt; http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win [howtocreate.co.uk] and this one too last year also -&gt; http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm [cnet.co.uk]("Beat that with a stick", as the saying goes!
)APKP.S.=&gt; Nicest part about Opera is that it originates a LOT of what folks consider cool, as far as browser features, &amp; first (e,g, - tabbed browsing anyone), &amp; it contains features you cannot get in FireFox &amp; IE natively (i.e - without addons (such as site by site choices of whether to run javascript on a website, or not (javascript IS what gets you people all "hit" by these online attacks, &amp; sites like SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much, easily)))... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580324</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>c-reus</author>
	<datestamp>1269376500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go ahead and construct a formal verification for any browser currently available. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prover9" title="wikipedia.org">Here's a starting point</a> [wikipedia.org], let's see how far you'll get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead and construct a formal verification for any browser currently available .
Here 's a starting point [ wikipedia.org ] , let 's see how far you 'll get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead and construct a formal verification for any browser currently available.
Here's a starting point [wikipedia.org], let's see how far you'll get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581832</id>
	<title>Re:German government warns:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269351000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* against the use of Opera!</p></div><p>They will have to pry my Wagner collection out of my cold dead hands!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>* against the use of Chrome!</p></div><p>They will have to pry my Chromium dose out of my skinny, diabetic and confused hands!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>* against the use of internets!</p></div><p>I've got nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* against the use of Opera ! They will have to pry my Wagner collection out of my cold dead hands !
* against the use of Chrome ! They will have to pry my Chromium dose out of my skinny , diabetic and confused hands !
* against the use of internets ! I 've got nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* against the use of Opera!They will have to pry my Wagner collection out of my cold dead hands!
* against the use of Chrome!They will have to pry my Chromium dose out of my skinny, diabetic and confused hands!
* against the use of internets!I've got nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580712</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269339060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right. Find me a group of programmers that can write an entire web browser without any flaws or exploits, while having all the features everyone wants.</p><p>Yeah.</p></div><p>You sound English. Fucking wanker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Find me a group of programmers that can write an entire web browser without any flaws or exploits , while having all the features everyone wants.Yeah.You sound English .
Fucking wanker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Find me a group of programmers that can write an entire web browser without any flaws or exploits, while having all the features everyone wants.Yeah.You sound English.
Fucking wanker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581062</id>
	<title>The Internet is a dangerous place...</title>
	<author>Andrioid</author>
	<datestamp>1269343440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Germans are absolutely right to caution against using various browsers - unplugging is probably safest, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Germans are absolutely right to caution against using various browsers - unplugging is probably safest , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Germans are absolutely right to caution against using various browsers - unplugging is probably safest, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580314</id>
	<title>German government warns:</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1269376380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* against the use of Opera!<br>* against the use of Chrome!<br>* against the use of internets!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* against the use of Opera !
* against the use of Chrome !
* against the use of internets !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* against the use of Opera!
* against the use of Chrome!
* against the use of internets!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582866</id>
	<title>Re:Free software in action</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1269355920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter how clever you think you are, no matter how hard you work to prevent vulnerabilities, they will be in the release code in something as complex as a web browser (or an Operating System).</p><p>"I want software that is written correctly and has no exploits" is an unrealistic expectation.  It's like saying "I want my power tools to be built in such a way that they cannot possibly harm me"</p><p>Most (certainly <b>not</b> all) software is built with very careful reviews, trying to figure out ways that black hats might exploit the software and code against it.  But it's an arms race - the black hats are constantly working on ways to get by the software.</p><p>So, yeah, while I agree with GP that "I want software that is written correctly", this is the real world, where there are bad people who will think of things you didn't and break your software.  So this cannot possibly be an "either/or" decision.</p><p>I want people who write software as correctly as feasibly possible, understanding that humans make mistakes and that other people are out there who are just as clever as the software authors and who do nothing but try to break it.  I accept, in return, that I have to take a role in securing my system if I want control over my system.</p><p>More importantly, I want people who are open and honest about those flaws when they happen, acknowledge the flaws quickly, and fix them very rapidly.  I can't defend myself against a flaw I do not know exists, and I want that flaw to go away very quickly once it is discovered.  I have seen precious few teams who crank out fixes faster than Team Firefox.</p><p>So far, in the browser world, I have yet to find a team that releases consistently higher-quality (not perfect, but high-quality) code, is more open about their vulnerabilities, and responds to defects more quickly than the Firefox team.  That's not to say that all other browsers out there are bad, or that Firefox is 100\% secure, but the Firefox team appears to be doing about the best job one could realistically expect.  And yet, it's still all free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how clever you think you are , no matter how hard you work to prevent vulnerabilities , they will be in the release code in something as complex as a web browser ( or an Operating System ) .
" I want software that is written correctly and has no exploits " is an unrealistic expectation .
It 's like saying " I want my power tools to be built in such a way that they can not possibly harm me " Most ( certainly not all ) software is built with very careful reviews , trying to figure out ways that black hats might exploit the software and code against it .
But it 's an arms race - the black hats are constantly working on ways to get by the software.So , yeah , while I agree with GP that " I want software that is written correctly " , this is the real world , where there are bad people who will think of things you did n't and break your software .
So this can not possibly be an " either/or " decision.I want people who write software as correctly as feasibly possible , understanding that humans make mistakes and that other people are out there who are just as clever as the software authors and who do nothing but try to break it .
I accept , in return , that I have to take a role in securing my system if I want control over my system.More importantly , I want people who are open and honest about those flaws when they happen , acknowledge the flaws quickly , and fix them very rapidly .
I ca n't defend myself against a flaw I do not know exists , and I want that flaw to go away very quickly once it is discovered .
I have seen precious few teams who crank out fixes faster than Team Firefox.So far , in the browser world , I have yet to find a team that releases consistently higher-quality ( not perfect , but high-quality ) code , is more open about their vulnerabilities , and responds to defects more quickly than the Firefox team .
That 's not to say that all other browsers out there are bad , or that Firefox is 100 \ % secure , but the Firefox team appears to be doing about the best job one could realistically expect .
And yet , it 's still all free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how clever you think you are, no matter how hard you work to prevent vulnerabilities, they will be in the release code in something as complex as a web browser (or an Operating System).
"I want software that is written correctly and has no exploits" is an unrealistic expectation.
It's like saying "I want my power tools to be built in such a way that they cannot possibly harm me"Most (certainly not all) software is built with very careful reviews, trying to figure out ways that black hats might exploit the software and code against it.
But it's an arms race - the black hats are constantly working on ways to get by the software.So, yeah, while I agree with GP that "I want software that is written correctly", this is the real world, where there are bad people who will think of things you didn't and break your software.
So this cannot possibly be an "either/or" decision.I want people who write software as correctly as feasibly possible, understanding that humans make mistakes and that other people are out there who are just as clever as the software authors and who do nothing but try to break it.
I accept, in return, that I have to take a role in securing my system if I want control over my system.More importantly, I want people who are open and honest about those flaws when they happen, acknowledge the flaws quickly, and fix them very rapidly.
I can't defend myself against a flaw I do not know exists, and I want that flaw to go away very quickly once it is discovered.
I have seen precious few teams who crank out fixes faster than Team Firefox.So far, in the browser world, I have yet to find a team that releases consistently higher-quality (not perfect, but high-quality) code, is more open about their vulnerabilities, and responds to defects more quickly than the Firefox team.
That's not to say that all other browsers out there are bad, or that Firefox is 100\% secure, but the Firefox team appears to be doing about the best job one could realistically expect.
And yet, it's still all free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31585846</id>
	<title>Don't be ridiculous</title>
	<author>Benfea</author>
	<datestamp>1269367440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not possible to write a modern browser that is completely bug free and completely lacking in security holes. It sure is nice to wish that someone did make such a browser, but since browsers are written by human beings, I'll settle for browsers that are reasonably secure, reasonably bug-free, and frequently patched instead of complaining that none of them are perfect. Of course, if the post we're all responding to was made in jest, it was damned funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not possible to write a modern browser that is completely bug free and completely lacking in security holes .
It sure is nice to wish that someone did make such a browser , but since browsers are written by human beings , I 'll settle for browsers that are reasonably secure , reasonably bug-free , and frequently patched instead of complaining that none of them are perfect .
Of course , if the post we 're all responding to was made in jest , it was damned funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not possible to write a modern browser that is completely bug free and completely lacking in security holes.
It sure is nice to wish that someone did make such a browser, but since browsers are written by human beings, I'll settle for browsers that are reasonably secure, reasonably bug-free, and frequently patched instead of complaining that none of them are perfect.
Of course, if the post we're all responding to was made in jest, it was damned funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581734</id>
	<title>How do you actually protect your browsing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269350460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not asking what is the best way to protect your browsing in theory, but what do people actually *do* to be better protected?</p><p>I'm using Debian Linux and I've got a special "/home/temp/" account that I use for "everything besides GMail and my banking website" (banking website being also protected by a security device generating cryptographic tokens).</p><p>The Linux firewall itself is configured so that every traffic is disabled by default, and I only allow/whitelist stuff that needs to be allowed.</p><p>For example user "temp" is only allow to use ports 80 and 443.</p><p>But what do *you* do to browse? Do you use a read-only bootable CD on a "browsing only" computer? Or a VM (I used to have a VM only for IRC, but now I got lazy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not asking what is the best way to protect your browsing in theory , but what do people actually * do * to be better protected ? I 'm using Debian Linux and I 've got a special " /home/temp/ " account that I use for " everything besides GMail and my banking website " ( banking website being also protected by a security device generating cryptographic tokens ) .The Linux firewall itself is configured so that every traffic is disabled by default , and I only allow/whitelist stuff that needs to be allowed.For example user " temp " is only allow to use ports 80 and 443.But what do * you * do to browse ?
Do you use a read-only bootable CD on a " browsing only " computer ?
Or a VM ( I used to have a VM only for IRC , but now I got lazy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not asking what is the best way to protect your browsing in theory, but what do people actually *do* to be better protected?I'm using Debian Linux and I've got a special "/home/temp/" account that I use for "everything besides GMail and my banking website" (banking website being also protected by a security device generating cryptographic tokens).The Linux firewall itself is configured so that every traffic is disabled by default, and I only allow/whitelist stuff that needs to be allowed.For example user "temp" is only allow to use ports 80 and 443.But what do *you* do to browse?
Do you use a read-only bootable CD on a "browsing only" computer?
Or a VM (I used to have a VM only for IRC, but now I got lazy)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31589734</id>
	<title>I loan money to individuals and companies</title>
	<author>royalburg</author>
	<datestamp>1269341040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From Mr. Royal LOAN COMPANY
Remittance Director
Citi Groups Belgium.
E-mail: royal.loancompany02@gmail.com
Tel: +324-8136-234-644

DO YOU NEED LOAN FOR YOUR BILLS AND TO INVEST.


I am Mr. Royal Burg, a renowned legitimate accredited moneylender. I
reside in the Belgium

I loan money to individuals and companies who need financial assistance.If you are interested in this offer

contact us with this,
E-mail below: royal.loancompany02@gmail.com

Kindly fill the below form and return as soon as possible with your
personal information.

Full names<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:.......
Address<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:.........
City<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:.........
State<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:.........
Postcode<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:.........
Country<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:.........
Tel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:.........
Fax<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:.........
Amount Needed:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. In USD or Euro/POUNDS(GBP)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..........

(There are no social security or credit check, 100\% guaranteed!)
I look forward you will allow me to be of service to you. You can

contact
me via e-mail: royal.loancompany02@gmail.com

Mr. Royal Burg
Remittance Director
Citi Groups Belgium
Sincerely CEO,
Best regards,</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Mr. Royal LOAN COMPANY Remittance Director Citi Groups Belgium .
E-mail : royal.loancompany02 @ gmail.com Tel : + 324-8136-234-644 DO YOU NEED LOAN FOR YOUR BILLS AND TO INVEST .
I am Mr. Royal Burg , a renowned legitimate accredited moneylender .
I reside in the Belgium I loan money to individuals and companies who need financial assistance.If you are interested in this offer contact us with this , E-mail below : royal.loancompany02 @ gmail.com Kindly fill the below form and return as soon as possible with your personal information .
Full names : ...... . Address : ........ . City : ........ . State : ........ . Postcode : ........ . Country : ........ . Tel : ........ . Fax : ........ . Amount Needed : .. In USD or Euro/POUNDS ( GBP ) ......... . ( There are no social security or credit check , 100 \ % guaranteed !
) I look forward you will allow me to be of service to you .
You can contact me via e-mail : royal.loancompany02 @ gmail.com Mr. Royal Burg Remittance Director Citi Groups Belgium Sincerely CEO , Best regards,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Mr. Royal LOAN COMPANY
Remittance Director
Citi Groups Belgium.
E-mail: royal.loancompany02@gmail.com
Tel: +324-8136-234-644

DO YOU NEED LOAN FOR YOUR BILLS AND TO INVEST.
I am Mr. Royal Burg, a renowned legitimate accredited moneylender.
I
reside in the Belgium

I loan money to individuals and companies who need financial assistance.If you are interested in this offer

contact us with this,
E-mail below: royal.loancompany02@gmail.com

Kindly fill the below form and return as soon as possible with your
personal information.
Full names :.......
Address :.........
City :.........
State :.........
Postcode :.........
Country :.........
Tel :.........
Fax :.........
Amount Needed: .. In USD or Euro/POUNDS(GBP) ..........

(There are no social security or credit check, 100\% guaranteed!
)
I look forward you will allow me to be of service to you.
You can

contact
me via e-mail: royal.loancompany02@gmail.com

Mr. Royal Burg
Remittance Director
Citi Groups Belgium
Sincerely CEO,
Best regards,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166</id>
	<title>Free software in action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as I read about this on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I realized Firefox is downloading an update to 3.6.2. This is why free software is our best tool against malware. Reaction time can scale with importance. And (shameless free software plug alert) it's why I wrote what's in my sig.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I read about this on / .
I realized Firefox is downloading an update to 3.6.2 .
This is why free software is our best tool against malware .
Reaction time can scale with importance .
And ( shameless free software plug alert ) it 's why I wrote what 's in my sig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I read about this on /.
I realized Firefox is downloading an update to 3.6.2.
This is why free software is our best tool against malware.
Reaction time can scale with importance.
And (shameless free software plug alert) it's why I wrote what's in my sig.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581828</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1269350940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So don't use IE, now don't use FF, soon, don't use Opera or Safari, come on, they want no one to use the net, or what?<br>Seriously, what do they expect, instead of warning to not use them, instead warn how to use them in combination with updates, patches, AV, and firewalls, but that would be a little more effort!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So do n't use IE , now do n't use FF , soon , do n't use Opera or Safari , come on , they want no one to use the net , or what ? Seriously , what do they expect , instead of warning to not use them , instead warn how to use them in combination with updates , patches , AV , and firewalls , but that would be a little more effort !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So don't use IE, now don't use FF, soon, don't use Opera or Safari, come on, they want no one to use the net, or what?Seriously, what do they expect, instead of warning to not use them, instead warn how to use them in combination with updates, patches, AV, and firewalls, but that would be a little more effort!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580796</id>
	<title>It ain't over till the fat lady sings</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1269340080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera.  As any fule kno, Germans are really keen on opera.  They have some that go on for weeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera .
As any fule kno , Germans are really keen on opera .
They have some that go on for weeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera.
As any fule kno, Germans are really keen on opera.
They have some that go on for weeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580510</id>
	<title>And the risk is???</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1269336420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm reading this correctly, the vulnerability is in WOFF fonts (what is a WOFF font?) and possibly allows some heap corruption.  How do these various "exploits" actually get the Firefox code to execute out of the heap?  I.e. one presumably has to either scribble on some known call-back function address in the heap, or somehow scribble on the stack (so Firefox/Seamonkey functions return to the exploit code in the heap) and isn't the data in the heap non-executable (at least under Linux)?  I would expect that anyone trying to exploit vulnerabilities such as this would be causing the browser to abort (due to SEGV's or other severe faults) and would drive users away from accessing such pages.</p><p>So are these many "exploits" one hears about mostly sound and fury or are there serious risks?  [In contrast to say something like an SQL injection attack where a person with reasonable knowledge of SQL could compromise insecure servers.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm reading this correctly , the vulnerability is in WOFF fonts ( what is a WOFF font ?
) and possibly allows some heap corruption .
How do these various " exploits " actually get the Firefox code to execute out of the heap ?
I.e. one presumably has to either scribble on some known call-back function address in the heap , or somehow scribble on the stack ( so Firefox/Seamonkey functions return to the exploit code in the heap ) and is n't the data in the heap non-executable ( at least under Linux ) ?
I would expect that anyone trying to exploit vulnerabilities such as this would be causing the browser to abort ( due to SEGV 's or other severe faults ) and would drive users away from accessing such pages.So are these many " exploits " one hears about mostly sound and fury or are there serious risks ?
[ In contrast to say something like an SQL injection attack where a person with reasonable knowledge of SQL could compromise insecure servers .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm reading this correctly, the vulnerability is in WOFF fonts (what is a WOFF font?
) and possibly allows some heap corruption.
How do these various "exploits" actually get the Firefox code to execute out of the heap?
I.e. one presumably has to either scribble on some known call-back function address in the heap, or somehow scribble on the stack (so Firefox/Seamonkey functions return to the exploit code in the heap) and isn't the data in the heap non-executable (at least under Linux)?
I would expect that anyone trying to exploit vulnerabilities such as this would be causing the browser to abort (due to SEGV's or other severe faults) and would drive users away from accessing such pages.So are these many "exploits" one hears about mostly sound and fury or are there serious risks?
[In contrast to say something like an SQL injection attack where a person with reasonable knowledge of SQL could compromise insecure servers.
]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580146</id>
	<title>moot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They dun gone and been outmooted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They dun gone and been outmooted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They dun gone and been outmooted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31583734</id>
	<title>Use Lynx!</title>
	<author>Compaqt</author>
	<datestamp>1269359520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just sayin'.</p><p><a href="http://lynx.isc.org/" title="isc.org" rel="nofollow">http://lynx.isc.org/</a> [isc.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just sayin'.http : //lynx.isc.org/ [ isc.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just sayin'.http://lynx.isc.org/ [isc.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580710</id>
	<title>Chrome also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269339000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The German government also warned about using Google Chrome when it first came out. I'm not sure what the status on that is right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The German government also warned about using Google Chrome when it first came out .
I 'm not sure what the status on that is right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The German government also warned about using Google Chrome when it first came out.
I'm not sure what the status on that is right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31585398</id>
	<title>Nein, nein, nein!</title>
	<author>Dretep</author>
	<datestamp>1269365820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I vill hear no more insinuations about the German people. Nothing bad happened. Sie werden sich hinsetzen. Sie werden ruhig sein. Sie werden nicht beleidigen Deutschland.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I vill hear no more insinuations about the German people .
Nothing bad happened .
Sie werden sich hinsetzen .
Sie werden ruhig sein .
Sie werden nicht beleidigen Deutschland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vill hear no more insinuations about the German people.
Nothing bad happened.
Sie werden sich hinsetzen.
Sie werden ruhig sein.
Sie werden nicht beleidigen Deutschland.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31586136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31587578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31583860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31585846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31592976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31584996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0415208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31584996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580712
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581198
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580646
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581334
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31583860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580372
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581138
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582030
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31587578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580868
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31585846
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582866
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580918
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31586136
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31582092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31581292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31592976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0415208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0415208.31580518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
