<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_01_1438219</id>
	<title>Microsoft Update Quietly Installs Firefox Extension</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1243868160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>hemantm writes <i>"A routine security update for a Microsoft Windows component installed on tens of millions of computers has quietly <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft\_update\_quietly\_insta.html">installed an extra add-on</a> for an untold number of users surfing the Web with Mozilla's Firefox Web browser."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>hemantm writes " A routine security update for a Microsoft Windows component installed on tens of millions of computers has quietly installed an extra add-on for an untold number of users surfing the Web with Mozilla 's Firefox Web browser .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hemantm writes "A routine security update for a Microsoft Windows component installed on tens of millions of computers has quietly installed an extra add-on for an untold number of users surfing the Web with Mozilla's Firefox Web browser.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168633</id>
	<title>Grrr.</title>
	<author>apodyopsis</author>
	<datestamp>1243873560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry it says it only reports the installed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework versions so websites can decide what version of garbage they can spew to your browser.</p><p>After all, we all know here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that we can trust that description implicitly given Microsoft's past history of 20 years of good karma, open and friendly practice and just nice old fashioned values.</p><p>Gah, I find the mere concept of this nauseating. It further illustrates that even now the idea of a standard web experience across operating systems and browsers is a pipe dream, because nobody codes to the lowest common denominator and the standards are too fragmented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry it says it only reports the installed .NET framework versions so websites can decide what version of garbage they can spew to your browser.After all , we all know here on / .
that we can trust that description implicitly given Microsoft 's past history of 20 years of good karma , open and friendly practice and just nice old fashioned values.Gah , I find the mere concept of this nauseating .
It further illustrates that even now the idea of a standard web experience across operating systems and browsers is a pipe dream , because nobody codes to the lowest common denominator and the standards are too fragmented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry it says it only reports the installed .NET framework versions so websites can decide what version of garbage they can spew to your browser.After all, we all know here on /.
that we can trust that description implicitly given Microsoft's past history of 20 years of good karma, open and friendly practice and just nice old fashioned values.Gah, I find the mere concept of this nauseating.
It further illustrates that even now the idea of a standard web experience across operating systems and browsers is a pipe dream, because nobody codes to the lowest common denominator and the standards are too fragmented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168697</id>
	<title>Re:Some Left Over Stupidity from the Last Millenni</title>
	<author>doti</author>
	<datestamp>1243873920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't this the mentality that has gotten IE users in trouble time and time again?!</p> </div><p>And now it will get Firefox users in trouble time and time again.<br>It's a win-win situation for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the mentality that has gotten IE users in trouble time and time again ? !
And now it will get Firefox users in trouble time and time again.It 's a win-win situation for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the mentality that has gotten IE users in trouble time and time again?!
And now it will get Firefox users in trouble time and time again.It's a win-win situation for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168257</id>
	<title>Microsoft patching 3rd party apps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What ever next!?</p><p>I wonder if Mozilla know about this? Probably done with their consent as it can only be a good thing, but whats next? Firefox updates on Windows Update?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ever next !
? I wonder if Mozilla know about this ?
Probably done with their consent as it can only be a good thing , but whats next ?
Firefox updates on Windows Update ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ever next!
?I wonder if Mozilla know about this?
Probably done with their consent as it can only be a good thing, but whats next?
Firefox updates on Windows Update?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169273</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243876260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Firefox was an evil company of some sort, they would deliberately add some functionality to make browser break when their extension installed from their back and call a good lawyer company. For a software/app at market share of Firefox, I can guarantee millions of dollars in return although I am not a lawyer.</p><p>MS should pray that they don't seem interested in such things and of course, source is open to look/review. E.g. it is not Microsoft.</p><p>If it sounded too childish or tin foil, just check that story <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how\_ms\_played\_the\_incompatibility/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how\_ms\_played\_the\_incompatibility/</a> [theregister.co.uk] . It is not a IT urban legend, it is actually documented in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Firefox was an evil company of some sort , they would deliberately add some functionality to make browser break when their extension installed from their back and call a good lawyer company .
For a software/app at market share of Firefox , I can guarantee millions of dollars in return although I am not a lawyer.MS should pray that they do n't seem interested in such things and of course , source is open to look/review .
E.g. it is not Microsoft.If it sounded too childish or tin foil , just check that story http : //www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how \ _ms \ _played \ _the \ _incompatibility/ [ theregister.co.uk ] .
It is not a IT urban legend , it is actually documented in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Firefox was an evil company of some sort, they would deliberately add some functionality to make browser break when their extension installed from their back and call a good lawyer company.
For a software/app at market share of Firefox, I can guarantee millions of dollars in return although I am not a lawyer.MS should pray that they don't seem interested in such things and of course, source is open to look/review.
E.g. it is not Microsoft.If it sounded too childish or tin foil, just check that story http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how\_ms\_played\_the\_incompatibility/ [theregister.co.uk] .
It is not a IT urban legend, it is actually documented in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28172961</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>klui</author>
	<datestamp>1243848180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is in order to install the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET update, you need to be admin. Security-minded people who use Windows do so as a normal user. Therein lies the problem. Admin writes the registry entry in HKLM but running Firefox as a normal user, one cannot write in HKLM, only HKLU. I don't like having to run Firefox every time I update something on my system to see if some extension has been installed.</p><p>Sun did this same shit for their recent update of Java.</p><p>So after most updates, I now have to go to HKLM/Software/Mozilla/Firefox/extensions and clear out crap I don't recognize. Imagine if extensions were created by many other software companies that hijack their competitors' installs and we'll have a much bigger problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is in order to install the .NET update , you need to be admin .
Security-minded people who use Windows do so as a normal user .
Therein lies the problem .
Admin writes the registry entry in HKLM but running Firefox as a normal user , one can not write in HKLM , only HKLU .
I do n't like having to run Firefox every time I update something on my system to see if some extension has been installed.Sun did this same shit for their recent update of Java.So after most updates , I now have to go to HKLM/Software/Mozilla/Firefox/extensions and clear out crap I do n't recognize .
Imagine if extensions were created by many other software companies that hijack their competitors ' installs and we 'll have a much bigger problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is in order to install the .NET update, you need to be admin.
Security-minded people who use Windows do so as a normal user.
Therein lies the problem.
Admin writes the registry entry in HKLM but running Firefox as a normal user, one cannot write in HKLM, only HKLU.
I don't like having to run Firefox every time I update something on my system to see if some extension has been installed.Sun did this same shit for their recent update of Java.So after most updates, I now have to go to HKLM/Software/Mozilla/Firefox/extensions and clear out crap I don't recognize.
Imagine if extensions were created by many other software companies that hijack their competitors' installs and we'll have a much bigger problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170785</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1243883580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>true.. but there's plenty more that get installed.</p><p>I find today I have a Silverlight plugin, a Genuine Advantage plugin, an Office 2007 plugin, a Windows Media Player plugin, and a new WPF plugin (I thought Silverlight was WPF for the web, obviously I need both for all the rich GUI apps I don't want to use).</p><p>I expect to have more next time I get a service pack update from MS.</p><p>I'm keeping them there in the hope that someome comes up with a class action lawsuit I can benefit from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>true.. but there 's plenty more that get installed.I find today I have a Silverlight plugin , a Genuine Advantage plugin , an Office 2007 plugin , a Windows Media Player plugin , and a new WPF plugin ( I thought Silverlight was WPF for the web , obviously I need both for all the rich GUI apps I do n't want to use ) .I expect to have more next time I get a service pack update from MS.I 'm keeping them there in the hope that someome comes up with a class action lawsuit I can benefit from : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>true.. but there's plenty more that get installed.I find today I have a Silverlight plugin, a Genuine Advantage plugin, an Office 2007 plugin, a Windows Media Player plugin, and a new WPF plugin (I thought Silverlight was WPF for the web, obviously I need both for all the rich GUI apps I don't want to use).I expect to have more next time I get a service pack update from MS.I'm keeping them there in the hope that someome comes up with a class action lawsuit I can benefit from :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168891</id>
	<title>Re:It's a string in the user-agent</title>
	<author>slashd'oh</author>
	<datestamp>1243874760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can go to "<tt>about:config</tt>" and clear the value of "<tt>general.useragent.extra.microsoftdotnet</tt>" to remove the "<tt>(.NET [...])</tt>" part of the UA string.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can go to " about : config " and clear the value of " general.useragent.extra.microsoftdotnet " to remove the " ( .NET [ ... ] ) " part of the UA string .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can go to "about:config" and clear the value of "general.useragent.extra.microsoftdotnet" to remove the "(.NET [...])" part of the UA string.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173601</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise!</title>
	<author>Sj0</author>
	<datestamp>1243850460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Caldera's case, I'm afraid, isn't the squeaky clean piece of anti-microsoft rhetoric it used to be.</p><p>Caldera changed their name to SCO and we all know how that worked out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Caldera 's case , I 'm afraid , is n't the squeaky clean piece of anti-microsoft rhetoric it used to be.Caldera changed their name to SCO and we all know how that worked out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Caldera's case, I'm afraid, isn't the squeaky clean piece of anti-microsoft rhetoric it used to be.Caldera changed their name to SCO and we all know how that worked out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168551</id>
	<title>ClickOnce deployment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243873260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As clearly no one posting here knows anything about it here is some info:<br>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/t71a733d(VS.80).aspx</p><p>These are not "web" apps, this is for deploying a client side<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET app, and keeping it updated, it is not a vulnerability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As clearly no one posting here knows anything about it here is some info : http : //msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/t71a733d ( VS.80 ) .aspxThese are not " web " apps , this is for deploying a client side .NET app , and keeping it updated , it is not a vulnerability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As clearly no one posting here knows anything about it here is some info:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/t71a733d(VS.80).aspxThese are not "web" apps, this is for deploying a client side .NET app, and keeping it updated, it is not a vulnerability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169085</id>
	<title>Although,</title>
	<author>Random2</author>
	<datestamp>1243875480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was nice of the poster to put this up, for those of us who weren't here the first time and don't have several hours do spend digging through the archives...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was nice of the poster to put this up , for those of us who were n't here the first time and do n't have several hours do spend digging through the archives.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was nice of the poster to put this up, for those of us who weren't here the first time and don't have several hours do spend digging through the archives...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</id>
	<title>Some Left Over Stupidity from the Last Millennium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Wow, well, you know what can I say?  I applaud Microsoft for their work in Vista &amp; Windows 7 in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userland" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">separating userspace from kernelspace</a> [wikipedia.org] and then they just go and do something like this:<p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant 1.0<br>
Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework versions to the web server.</p></div><p>I do not like the sound of that nor does Annoyances.org as the article notes.  I don't like the idea of sending anything about software on my computer to a web server without me knowing about it.  I <i>really</i> don't like the sound of ClickOnce either!  Isn't this the mentality that has gotten IE users in trouble time and time again?!  <br> <br>

I don't have a problem with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as long as we're not heading back to blurring the line between what the browser should have access to (certain user space files) and what the browser inadvertently has access to (.NET libraries right in the kernel).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , well , you know what can I say ?
I applaud Microsoft for their work in Vista &amp; Windows 7 in separating userspace from kernelspace [ wikipedia.org ] and then they just go and do something like this : Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.0 Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed .NET framework versions to the web server.I do not like the sound of that nor does Annoyances.org as the article notes .
I do n't like the idea of sending anything about software on my computer to a web server without me knowing about it .
I really do n't like the sound of ClickOnce either !
Is n't this the mentality that has gotten IE users in trouble time and time again ? !
I do n't have a problem with the .NET framework ... as long as we 're not heading back to blurring the line between what the browser should have access to ( certain user space files ) and what the browser inadvertently has access to ( .NET libraries right in the kernel ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Wow, well, you know what can I say?
I applaud Microsoft for their work in Vista &amp; Windows 7 in separating userspace from kernelspace [wikipedia.org] and then they just go and do something like this:Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.0
Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed .NET framework versions to the web server.I do not like the sound of that nor does Annoyances.org as the article notes.
I don't like the idea of sending anything about software on my computer to a web server without me knowing about it.
I really don't like the sound of ClickOnce either!
Isn't this the mentality that has gotten IE users in trouble time and time again?!
I don't have a problem with the .NET framework ... as long as we're not heading back to blurring the line between what the browser should have access to (certain user space files) and what the browser inadvertently has access to (.NET libraries right in the kernel).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169609</id>
	<title>Re:Remove it!</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1243877700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Note that Oracle (nee Sun)</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Oracle was not "born as" Sun (which is what "n&#233;e" means). They were two separate companies until the recent purchase of Sun by Oracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that Oracle ( nee Sun )       Oracle was not " born as " Sun ( which is what " n   e " means ) .
They were two separate companies until the recent purchase of Sun by Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that Oracle (nee Sun)
      Oracle was not "born as" Sun (which is what "née" means).
They were two separate companies until the recent purchase of Sun by Oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169853</id>
	<title>Re:Bug in Firefox</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1243878840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a bug in Firefox. The update process is running as Administrator (if not Local System) and has write access to every file on the system including the Firefox binaries themselves. The updater shouldn't be modifying third-party software, but if that's what Microsoft chooses to do there isn't much third-party developers can do to stop them.</p><p>As for the inability to uninstall the extension, that's standard for extensions installed into the main Firefox application directory. You can only uninstall extensions installed into your personal profile; this behavior is the same under Linux for extensions installed via the package manager. You can <em>disable</em> any extension via your profile regardless of where it was installed, assuming the extensions themselves don't interfere--they have full access to and control over the Firefox UI while it's running. Once an extension is disabled it is no longer loaded at startup (apart from the manifest) and should be completely inert.</p><p>I do agree that system extensions should probably be disabled by default, with some sort of prompt to enable them when they're first detected. That would be a bit more user-friendly, but can't ultimately prevent system-level processes from messing with how Firefox operates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a bug in Firefox .
The update process is running as Administrator ( if not Local System ) and has write access to every file on the system including the Firefox binaries themselves .
The updater should n't be modifying third-party software , but if that 's what Microsoft chooses to do there is n't much third-party developers can do to stop them.As for the inability to uninstall the extension , that 's standard for extensions installed into the main Firefox application directory .
You can only uninstall extensions installed into your personal profile ; this behavior is the same under Linux for extensions installed via the package manager .
You can disable any extension via your profile regardless of where it was installed , assuming the extensions themselves do n't interfere--they have full access to and control over the Firefox UI while it 's running .
Once an extension is disabled it is no longer loaded at startup ( apart from the manifest ) and should be completely inert.I do agree that system extensions should probably be disabled by default , with some sort of prompt to enable them when they 're first detected .
That would be a bit more user-friendly , but ca n't ultimately prevent system-level processes from messing with how Firefox operates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a bug in Firefox.
The update process is running as Administrator (if not Local System) and has write access to every file on the system including the Firefox binaries themselves.
The updater shouldn't be modifying third-party software, but if that's what Microsoft chooses to do there isn't much third-party developers can do to stop them.As for the inability to uninstall the extension, that's standard for extensions installed into the main Firefox application directory.
You can only uninstall extensions installed into your personal profile; this behavior is the same under Linux for extensions installed via the package manager.
You can disable any extension via your profile regardless of where it was installed, assuming the extensions themselves don't interfere--they have full access to and control over the Firefox UI while it's running.
Once an extension is disabled it is no longer loaded at startup (apart from the manifest) and should be completely inert.I do agree that system extensions should probably be disabled by default, with some sort of prompt to enable them when they're first detected.
That would be a bit more user-friendly, but can't ultimately prevent system-level processes from messing with how Firefox operates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169915</id>
	<title>ObQuirk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has Steve Ballmer lost his flippin' mind?</p></div><p>Objection: Assumes organs not yet entered into evidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Steve Ballmer lost his flippin ' mind ? Objection : Assumes organs not yet entered into evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Steve Ballmer lost his flippin' mind?Objection: Assumes organs not yet entered into evidence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28178805</id>
	<title>Simple Solution</title>
	<author>Hach-Que</author>
	<datestamp>1243976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla should release an immediate update that simply ignores the registry entry and prompts the user whether they want they want an additional security hole installed.<br>
<br>
Maybe Firefox could silently filter Automatic Update installations to make sure they never install extensions again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla should release an immediate update that simply ignores the registry entry and prompts the user whether they want they want an additional security hole installed .
Maybe Firefox could silently filter Automatic Update installations to make sure they never install extensions again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla should release an immediate update that simply ignores the registry entry and prompts the user whether they want they want an additional security hole installed.
Maybe Firefox could silently filter Automatic Update installations to make sure they never install extensions again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171099</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox needs to fix this.</title>
	<author>Aurisor</author>
	<datestamp>1243884780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Add ons will ALWAYS be able to install themselves with out notifying you, welcome to <b>open source</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>The fact that firefox is open-source has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of add-ons to install without a user's knowledge.  A process running with superuser permissions (like windows update) could alter the state of any program on the machine, whether it be open-source or not.</p><p>As interesting as I found the information you brought to the table about firefox add-on handling, your stream of abuse and specious arguments made your post sound rather juvenile.</p><p>Next time, after you finish a post, take two minutes to walk around, cool off, and then come back and edit out all of the abuse and slander.  That will make it much easier for the rest of us to read your posts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Add ons will ALWAYS be able to install themselves with out notifying you , welcome to open source The fact that firefox is open-source has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of add-ons to install without a user 's knowledge .
A process running with superuser permissions ( like windows update ) could alter the state of any program on the machine , whether it be open-source or not.As interesting as I found the information you brought to the table about firefox add-on handling , your stream of abuse and specious arguments made your post sound rather juvenile.Next time , after you finish a post , take two minutes to walk around , cool off , and then come back and edit out all of the abuse and slander .
That will make it much easier for the rest of us to read your posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add ons will ALWAYS be able to install themselves with out notifying you, welcome to open source The fact that firefox is open-source has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of add-ons to install without a user's knowledge.
A process running with superuser permissions (like windows update) could alter the state of any program on the machine, whether it be open-source or not.As interesting as I found the information you brought to the table about firefox add-on handling, your stream of abuse and specious arguments made your post sound rather juvenile.Next time, after you finish a post, take two minutes to walk around, cool off, and then come back and edit out all of the abuse and slander.
That will make it much easier for the rest of us to read your posts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169333</id>
	<title>Re:Some Left Over Stupidity from the Last Millenni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243876560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>NET libraries right in the kernel</p></div></blockquote><p>Err what? That's like saying JAR files right in the kernel, complete bollocks. The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET CLR runs in ring 3 like any other user program, and loads libraries once it runs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NET libraries right in the kernelErr what ?
That 's like saying JAR files right in the kernel , complete bollocks .
The .NET CLR runs in ring 3 like any other user program , and loads libraries once it runs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NET libraries right in the kernelErr what?
That's like saying JAR files right in the kernel, complete bollocks.
The .NET CLR runs in ring 3 like any other user program, and loads libraries once it runs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171421</id>
	<title>Firefox cannot fix this</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1243885920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is clearly a bug in Firefox, and a fix should be released immediately.
I'd think that firstly Firefox should default to considering the extension "unauthorized" and put up a big scary warning like "Unauthorized extension detected:</p></div><p>None of this is technically possible. Windows update runs with administrative privileges, and there is nothing firefox, or any application can stop it from doing. Firefox could make it harder for microsoft to add an addon, but it would basically be some kind of drm-style security-by-obscurity race against reverse engineering.
This is a social, not a technical problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is clearly a bug in Firefox , and a fix should be released immediately .
I 'd think that firstly Firefox should default to considering the extension " unauthorized " and put up a big scary warning like " Unauthorized extension detected : None of this is technically possible .
Windows update runs with administrative privileges , and there is nothing firefox , or any application can stop it from doing .
Firefox could make it harder for microsoft to add an addon , but it would basically be some kind of drm-style security-by-obscurity race against reverse engineering .
This is a social , not a technical problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is clearly a bug in Firefox, and a fix should be released immediately.
I'd think that firstly Firefox should default to considering the extension "unauthorized" and put up a big scary warning like "Unauthorized extension detected:None of this is technically possible.
Windows update runs with administrative privileges, and there is nothing firefox, or any application can stop it from doing.
Firefox could make it harder for microsoft to add an addon, but it would basically be some kind of drm-style security-by-obscurity race against reverse engineering.
This is a social, not a technical problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170877</id>
	<title>vs Linux</title>
	<author>kahrn</author>
	<datestamp>1243884000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as people hate MS, is this really any different from a Linux distribution releasing patches specific to that distribution? Would we complain then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as people hate MS , is this really any different from a Linux distribution releasing patches specific to that distribution ?
Would we complain then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as people hate MS, is this really any different from a Linux distribution releasing patches specific to that distribution?
Would we complain then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169965</id>
	<title>Re:Bug in Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that the reason it cannot be uninstalled is because Firefox (securely) does not do privilege escalation and the extension was installed by Windows Update for all users; in which case the extension is located by reading en entry from the registry instead of your own individual Mozilla profile.</p><p>I agree with the statement there should be some type of warning when new plug-ins are installed. OH WAIT, there are warnings. Doesn't the add-on window pop up and say "1 new extension installed"? That's right.</p><p>The REAL fault here is with Microsoft not telling users it was MODIFYING THE SOFTWARE OF ANOTHER VENDOR, but apparently we're STILL going to blame the other vendor (Mozilla), even though we know the real story.</p><p>I sure liked technology more back when only smart people pretended to understand it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that the reason it can not be uninstalled is because Firefox ( securely ) does not do privilege escalation and the extension was installed by Windows Update for all users ; in which case the extension is located by reading en entry from the registry instead of your own individual Mozilla profile.I agree with the statement there should be some type of warning when new plug-ins are installed .
OH WAIT , there are warnings .
Does n't the add-on window pop up and say " 1 new extension installed " ?
That 's right.The REAL fault here is with Microsoft not telling users it was MODIFYING THE SOFTWARE OF ANOTHER VENDOR , but apparently we 're STILL going to blame the other vendor ( Mozilla ) , even though we know the real story.I sure liked technology more back when only smart people pretended to understand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that the reason it cannot be uninstalled is because Firefox (securely) does not do privilege escalation and the extension was installed by Windows Update for all users; in which case the extension is located by reading en entry from the registry instead of your own individual Mozilla profile.I agree with the statement there should be some type of warning when new plug-ins are installed.
OH WAIT, there are warnings.
Doesn't the add-on window pop up and say "1 new extension installed"?
That's right.The REAL fault here is with Microsoft not telling users it was MODIFYING THE SOFTWARE OF ANOTHER VENDOR, but apparently we're STILL going to blame the other vendor (Mozilla), even though we know the real story.I sure liked technology more back when only smart people pretended to understand it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168409</id>
	<title>How to remove</title>
	<author>NES HQ</author>
	<datestamp>1243872540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In case anyone's wondering:

<p>http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2009/02/27/uninstalling-the-clickonce-support-for-firefox.aspx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case anyone 's wondering : http : //blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2009/02/27/uninstalling-the-clickonce-support-for-firefox.aspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case anyone's wondering:

http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2009/02/27/uninstalling-the-clickonce-support-for-firefox.aspx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28179303</id>
	<title>Re:Remove it!</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1243938720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Multiple</i> extensions, actually.  You should take a look at IE's plug-in manager after installing Java.</p><p>With all those "helpers", I'm not surprised that Java apps are so slow to start up.  Bloat as far as the eye can see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Multiple extensions , actually .
You should take a look at IE 's plug-in manager after installing Java.With all those " helpers " , I 'm not surprised that Java apps are so slow to start up .
Bloat as far as the eye can see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Multiple extensions, actually.
You should take a look at IE's plug-in manager after installing Java.With all those "helpers", I'm not surprised that Java apps are so slow to start up.
Bloat as far as the eye can see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175931</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243861800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree about that godamn continue button,<br>what a pain in the ass piece of crap that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree about that godamn continue button,what a pain in the ass piece of crap that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree about that godamn continue button,what a pain in the ass piece of crap that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168583</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>aarmenaa</author>
	<datestamp>1243873380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may or may not be a related issue, but after disabling the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net extension a while back, visiting Hulu now locks up Firefox until I kill it.  I also have a lot of addons in general, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may or may not be a related issue , but after disabling the .Net extension a while back , visiting Hulu now locks up Firefox until I kill it .
I also have a lot of addons in general , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may or may not be a related issue, but after disabling the .Net extension a while back, visiting Hulu now locks up Firefox until I kill it.
I also have a lot of addons in general, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169481</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243877100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So lets speak about what has changed in 1 year? Firefox developers still didn't implement some sort of "If some extension installed behind my back (offline), ask user about it in next launch" functionality.</p></div><p>It DOES tell you when a new extension has been installed when you first run it, and then you're able to disable it, Microsoft seem to have made it un-uninstallable though, which is the problem, and one you probably can't blame on Firefox.<br>Not sure HOW it was made hard to remove, whether that's a Firefox feature or whether it's a Windows thing, but for example you can install some Firefox extensions through the package manager on some Linux distros for all users, and they can't be uninstalled in Firefox by a user since they were installed as root, I'd imagine something similar is done on Windows, but you can disable the extension</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So lets speak about what has changed in 1 year ?
Firefox developers still did n't implement some sort of " If some extension installed behind my back ( offline ) , ask user about it in next launch " functionality.It DOES tell you when a new extension has been installed when you first run it , and then you 're able to disable it , Microsoft seem to have made it un-uninstallable though , which is the problem , and one you probably ca n't blame on Firefox.Not sure HOW it was made hard to remove , whether that 's a Firefox feature or whether it 's a Windows thing , but for example you can install some Firefox extensions through the package manager on some Linux distros for all users , and they ca n't be uninstalled in Firefox by a user since they were installed as root , I 'd imagine something similar is done on Windows , but you can disable the extension</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So lets speak about what has changed in 1 year?
Firefox developers still didn't implement some sort of "If some extension installed behind my back (offline), ask user about it in next launch" functionality.It DOES tell you when a new extension has been installed when you first run it, and then you're able to disable it, Microsoft seem to have made it un-uninstallable though, which is the problem, and one you probably can't blame on Firefox.Not sure HOW it was made hard to remove, whether that's a Firefox feature or whether it's a Windows thing, but for example you can install some Firefox extensions through the package manager on some Linux distros for all users, and they can't be uninstalled in Firefox by a user since they were installed as root, I'd imagine something similar is done on Windows, but you can disable the extension
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173461</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of previous discussion</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1243849920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It most definitely IS unexpected, because I was never notified anywhere that a MICROSOFT update would entail installing an addon to a completely NON-Microsoft product.</i></p><p>Oh? And when you download Adobe Acrobat Reader, were you shocked and surprised and offended when it did its thing to your browser too? Gasp its just a document viewer for PDFs... why is it installing browser addons?</p><p>The addon is relevant to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net frameworks functionality, and its reasonable to assume people downloading an updating the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net framework should be aware of what it is and does, and want the functionality.</p><p>Plus...</p><p>1) Microsoft does notify you if you actually read the information about what you are downloading.</p><p>2) Firefox also notifies you when it starts up. If you don't want it just click disable. Microsoft knows this, and took no steps to try and stealth it in, so its RELYING on firefox's built in addon-notification. I don't see anything wrong with this.</p><p><i>1) Firefox is not a Microsoft application. It is installed at the will and whim of the end-user. And the end-user should have control over what is installed into their Firefox.</i></p><p>Lets take a look at my Addon's and Plugins... approximately 1/3rd of them were not explicitly installed by me, this is that half:</p><p>1) Adobe Acrobat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Firefox is not an Adobe application !!!<br>2) Citrix ICA Client<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. WTF... I access the Terminal Server via Program Neighborhood... I didn't ask for this in firefox!<br>3) iTunes Application Detector... Holy craps! Apple's in on this too?<br>4) Java Platform SE 6U13. I installed Java for OO.o what's it doing in Firefox... Man am I getting steamed.<br>5) Microsoft SharedView Plugin - Cripes... Microsoft snuck this into FF when I installed SharedView! Bastards.<br>6) QuickTime 7.6 -- Apple again fuckers!!<br>7) VMware Remote Console Plug-in -- holy shit even VMWARE is teh evilz!</p><p>Yeah, sorry, I'm having a tough time working a lot of outrage over the "Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant"</p><p><i>2) Microsoft has every opportunity to give that end user A CHOICE. </i></p><p>FF already notifies you on start up.  Microsoft knows this. What is the advantage of being asked twice?</p><p><i>3)They have no right to assume that I want their goddamned "Clickonce" thing to work.</i></p><p>So don't install automatic updates to features if you don't want them automatically updated.</p><p><i>Given Microsoft's track record with security, I worry:</i></p><p><i>- Windows user installs Firefox to avoid IE's security flaws.<br>- Microsoft silently installs a plugin onto Firefox that reports the browser includes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET functionality allows websites to host<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET executables.<br>- Hackers discover a way to exploit this.<br>- Thus, Firefox is now less secure thanks to Microsoft</i></p><p>a) It wasn't silent. FF tells you quite plainly that it happened.<br>b) It isn't unique to microsoft... Adobe, Citrix, Sun, VMware, and Apple are all doing it too... in some cases they even do it on Linux.</p><p>c) I'm curious what your "better solution" is? And why isn't relying on FF's own notification mechanism not acceptable to you?</p><p>Your argument sounds pretty shrill to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It most definitely IS unexpected , because I was never notified anywhere that a MICROSOFT update would entail installing an addon to a completely NON-Microsoft product.Oh ?
And when you download Adobe Acrobat Reader , were you shocked and surprised and offended when it did its thing to your browser too ?
Gasp its just a document viewer for PDFs... why is it installing browser addons ? The addon is relevant to the .net frameworks functionality , and its reasonable to assume people downloading an updating the .net framework should be aware of what it is and does , and want the functionality.Plus...1 ) Microsoft does notify you if you actually read the information about what you are downloading.2 ) Firefox also notifies you when it starts up .
If you do n't want it just click disable .
Microsoft knows this , and took no steps to try and stealth it in , so its RELYING on firefox 's built in addon-notification .
I do n't see anything wrong with this.1 ) Firefox is not a Microsoft application .
It is installed at the will and whim of the end-user .
And the end-user should have control over what is installed into their Firefox.Lets take a look at my Addon 's and Plugins... approximately 1/3rd of them were not explicitly installed by me , this is that half : 1 ) Adobe Acrobat .. Firefox is not an Adobe application ! !
! 2 ) Citrix ICA Client .. WTF... I access the Terminal Server via Program Neighborhood... I did n't ask for this in firefox ! 3 ) iTunes Application Detector... Holy craps !
Apple 's in on this too ? 4 ) Java Platform SE 6U13 .
I installed Java for OO.o what 's it doing in Firefox... Man am I getting steamed.5 ) Microsoft SharedView Plugin - Cripes... Microsoft snuck this into FF when I installed SharedView !
Bastards.6 ) QuickTime 7.6 -- Apple again fuckers !
! 7 ) VMware Remote Console Plug-in -- holy shit even VMWARE is teh evilz ! Yeah , sorry , I 'm having a tough time working a lot of outrage over the " Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant " 2 ) Microsoft has every opportunity to give that end user A CHOICE .
FF already notifies you on start up .
Microsoft knows this .
What is the advantage of being asked twice ? 3 ) They have no right to assume that I want their goddamned " Clickonce " thing to work.So do n't install automatic updates to features if you do n't want them automatically updated.Given Microsoft 's track record with security , I worry : - Windows user installs Firefox to avoid IE 's security flaws.- Microsoft silently installs a plugin onto Firefox that reports the browser includes .NET functionality allows websites to host .NET executables.- Hackers discover a way to exploit this.- Thus , Firefox is now less secure thanks to Microsofta ) It was n't silent .
FF tells you quite plainly that it happened.b ) It is n't unique to microsoft... Adobe , Citrix , Sun , VMware , and Apple are all doing it too... in some cases they even do it on Linux.c ) I 'm curious what your " better solution " is ?
And why is n't relying on FF 's own notification mechanism not acceptable to you ? Your argument sounds pretty shrill to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It most definitely IS unexpected, because I was never notified anywhere that a MICROSOFT update would entail installing an addon to a completely NON-Microsoft product.Oh?
And when you download Adobe Acrobat Reader, were you shocked and surprised and offended when it did its thing to your browser too?
Gasp its just a document viewer for PDFs... why is it installing browser addons?The addon is relevant to the .net frameworks functionality, and its reasonable to assume people downloading an updating the .net framework should be aware of what it is and does, and want the functionality.Plus...1) Microsoft does notify you if you actually read the information about what you are downloading.2) Firefox also notifies you when it starts up.
If you don't want it just click disable.
Microsoft knows this, and took no steps to try and stealth it in, so its RELYING on firefox's built in addon-notification.
I don't see anything wrong with this.1) Firefox is not a Microsoft application.
It is installed at the will and whim of the end-user.
And the end-user should have control over what is installed into their Firefox.Lets take a look at my Addon's and Plugins... approximately 1/3rd of them were not explicitly installed by me, this is that half:1) Adobe Acrobat .. Firefox is not an Adobe application !!
!2) Citrix ICA Client .. WTF... I access the Terminal Server via Program Neighborhood... I didn't ask for this in firefox!3) iTunes Application Detector... Holy craps!
Apple's in on this too?4) Java Platform SE 6U13.
I installed Java for OO.o what's it doing in Firefox... Man am I getting steamed.5) Microsoft SharedView Plugin - Cripes... Microsoft snuck this into FF when I installed SharedView!
Bastards.6) QuickTime 7.6 -- Apple again fuckers!
!7) VMware Remote Console Plug-in -- holy shit even VMWARE is teh evilz!Yeah, sorry, I'm having a tough time working a lot of outrage over the "Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant"2) Microsoft has every opportunity to give that end user A CHOICE.
FF already notifies you on start up.
Microsoft knows this.
What is the advantage of being asked twice?3)They have no right to assume that I want their goddamned "Clickonce" thing to work.So don't install automatic updates to features if you don't want them automatically updated.Given Microsoft's track record with security, I worry:- Windows user installs Firefox to avoid IE's security flaws.- Microsoft silently installs a plugin onto Firefox that reports the browser includes .NET functionality allows websites to host .NET executables.- Hackers discover a way to exploit this.- Thus, Firefox is now less secure thanks to Microsofta) It wasn't silent.
FF tells you quite plainly that it happened.b) It isn't unique to microsoft... Adobe, Citrix, Sun, VMware, and Apple are all doing it too... in some cases they even do it on Linux.c) I'm curious what your "better solution" is?
And why isn't relying on FF's own notification mechanism not acceptable to you?Your argument sounds pretty shrill to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171729</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>X0563511</author>
	<datestamp>1243887000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but for example you can install some Firefox extensions through the package manager on some Linux distros for all users, and they can't be uninstalled in Firefox by a user since they were installed as root, I'd imagine something similar is done on Windows, but you can disable the extension</p></div></blockquote><p>This is because those package-manager extensions end up in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/lib, which you (as a normal user) generally have read-only access to. Extensions you install in the browser end up in ~/.mozilla, which you generally have read-write access to.</p><p>The same could be done on windows by editing the extension's ACLs to disallow modification or deletion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but for example you can install some Firefox extensions through the package manager on some Linux distros for all users , and they ca n't be uninstalled in Firefox by a user since they were installed as root , I 'd imagine something similar is done on Windows , but you can disable the extensionThis is because those package-manager extensions end up in /usr/lib , which you ( as a normal user ) generally have read-only access to .
Extensions you install in the browser end up in ~ /.mozilla , which you generally have read-write access to.The same could be done on windows by editing the extension 's ACLs to disallow modification or deletion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but for example you can install some Firefox extensions through the package manager on some Linux distros for all users, and they can't be uninstalled in Firefox by a user since they were installed as root, I'd imagine something similar is done on Windows, but you can disable the extensionThis is because those package-manager extensions end up in /usr/lib, which you (as a normal user) generally have read-only access to.
Extensions you install in the browser end up in ~/.mozilla, which you generally have read-write access to.The same could be done on windows by editing the extension's ACLs to disallow modification or deletion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173623</id>
	<title>Unethical</title>
	<author>dontgetshocked</author>
	<datestamp>1243850580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is unethical in my humble opinion but hey this is Microsoft.All things are lawful but not all things are advantageous!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is unethical in my humble opinion but hey this is Microsoft.All things are lawful but not all things are advantageous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is unethical in my humble opinion but hey this is Microsoft.All things are lawful but not all things are advantageous!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28188061</id>
	<title>just one more example of extension abuse</title>
	<author>alexanderstohr</author>
	<datestamp>1243938000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"RealPlayer Browser Record Plugin" - hard to say how it came, but it has its uninstall button disabled,
compalins about not beeing compatible with FF 3-something and this wont resolve by any standard update way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" RealPlayer Browser Record Plugin " - hard to say how it came , but it has its uninstall button disabled , compalins about not beeing compatible with FF 3-something and this wont resolve by any standard update way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"RealPlayer Browser Record Plugin" - hard to say how it came, but it has its uninstall button disabled,
compalins about not beeing compatible with FF 3-something and this wont resolve by any standard update way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168269</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>viyh</author>
	<datestamp>1243872000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft trying to take over the world by shady practices? Yeah, right...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft trying to take over the world by shady practices ?
Yeah , right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft trying to take over the world by shady practices?
Yeah, right...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168635</id>
	<title>Not the only ones that are doing that</title>
	<author>joseprio</author>
	<datestamp>1243873560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my system I also have the "Java Quick Starter" (from Sun), and I already removed the Skype add-on.<br> <br>
As a Firefox extension developer, I've received several complaints about disappearing toolbar buttons, and the answer is always the same: check for the Skype extension that was installed without your consent, and uninstall it. Plus, navigating the browser history was a lot slower, and removing that add-on solved the problem (the Skype extension will scan the page contents to substitute phone numbers by Skype actions).<br> <br>
This is not limited to Firefox, as this stuff has been happening in Internet Explorer for a long, long time. Still, it would be nice if Firefox would protect its users from non-authorized extensions, warning of what was installed, and providing a easy way to uninstall/disable it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my system I also have the " Java Quick Starter " ( from Sun ) , and I already removed the Skype add-on .
As a Firefox extension developer , I 've received several complaints about disappearing toolbar buttons , and the answer is always the same : check for the Skype extension that was installed without your consent , and uninstall it .
Plus , navigating the browser history was a lot slower , and removing that add-on solved the problem ( the Skype extension will scan the page contents to substitute phone numbers by Skype actions ) .
This is not limited to Firefox , as this stuff has been happening in Internet Explorer for a long , long time .
Still , it would be nice if Firefox would protect its users from non-authorized extensions , warning of what was installed , and providing a easy way to uninstall/disable it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my system I also have the "Java Quick Starter" (from Sun), and I already removed the Skype add-on.
As a Firefox extension developer, I've received several complaints about disappearing toolbar buttons, and the answer is always the same: check for the Skype extension that was installed without your consent, and uninstall it.
Plus, navigating the browser history was a lot slower, and removing that add-on solved the problem (the Skype extension will scan the page contents to substitute phone numbers by Skype actions).
This is not limited to Firefox, as this stuff has been happening in Internet Explorer for a long, long time.
Still, it would be nice if Firefox would protect its users from non-authorized extensions, warning of what was installed, and providing a easy way to uninstall/disable it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168281</id>
	<title>Time to try Opera?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243872060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A routine security update for a Microsoft Windows component installed on tens of millions of computers has quietly installed an extra add-on for an untold number of users surfing the Web with Mozilla's Firefox Web browser.</p><p>Earlier this year, Microsoft shipped a bundle of updates known as a "service pack" for a programming platform called the Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework, which Microsoft and plenty of third-party developers use to run a variety of interactive programs on Windows.</p><p>Annoyances.org, which lists various aspects of Windows that are, well, annoying, says "this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC.""</p><p>*Sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A routine security update for a Microsoft Windows component installed on tens of millions of computers has quietly installed an extra add-on for an untold number of users surfing the Web with Mozilla 's Firefox Web browser.Earlier this year , Microsoft shipped a bundle of updates known as a " service pack " for a programming platform called the Microsoft .NET Framework , which Microsoft and plenty of third-party developers use to run a variety of interactive programs on Windows.Annoyances.org , which lists various aspects of Windows that are , well , annoying , says " this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer : the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC .
" " * Sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A routine security update for a Microsoft Windows component installed on tens of millions of computers has quietly installed an extra add-on for an untold number of users surfing the Web with Mozilla's Firefox Web browser.Earlier this year, Microsoft shipped a bundle of updates known as a "service pack" for a programming platform called the Microsoft .NET Framework, which Microsoft and plenty of third-party developers use to run a variety of interactive programs on Windows.Annoyances.org, which lists various aspects of Windows that are, well, annoying, says "this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC.
""*Sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511</id>
	<title>Unbelievably Evil</title>
	<author>dtjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1243873020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><i>Annoyances.org, which lists various aspects of Windows that are, well, annoying, says "this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC."</i> </p><p>This is unbelievably evil, even for Microsoft.  Has Steve Ballmer lost his flippin' mind?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Annoyances.org , which lists various aspects of Windows that are , well , annoying , says " this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer : the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC .
" This is unbelievably evil , even for Microsoft .
Has Steve Ballmer lost his flippin ' mind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Annoyances.org, which lists various aspects of Windows that are, well, annoying, says "this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC.
" This is unbelievably evil, even for Microsoft.
Has Steve Ballmer lost his flippin' mind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170763</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox needs to fix this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243883460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, there is a very simple solution.  Don't install software that does things you don't want it to do.  You're an idiot if you think there is anything what so ever that Firefox can do to stop this sort of thing.  There isn't.  Add ons will ALWAYS be able to install themselves with out notifying you, welcome to open source, EVERYONE can see how to do it, thats a feature of open source.  There is nothing Mozilla can do to stop it short of releasing a version with some non-OSS component that can be used to prevent it from happening using digital sigs to verify that only allowed add ons are installed or not load them.  And as soon as they do that Slashdot will be ranting and raving about freedom to do whatever the hell it wants.</p><p>You got your software freedom, you wanted everyone else to have the same access to the software as you do.  Great, they do, now you get to deal with the consequences of that.</p></div><p>Though you raise good points in your post, the one I quoted above is overly reliant on the assumption that Microsoft is playing nicely with the OSS community.  Because we are reading this article on Slashdot, it should not be difficult to infer what's really happening.  Microsoft released a closed-source, don't-know-what-it-does extension to Firefox, which is supposed to be an open-source program.  Those of us who still run Windows rely on Microsoft's patches to keep our systems from being gutted on the Internet.  One of these patches forces said Firefox extension on you and uses the "system add-on" feature as an end-run around not just the user's security policy, but also that of the computer's admin.  Plus, the update provided by Microsoft does not inform you of this installation beforehand.</p><p>To be honest, I don't really want Mozilla to try to filter this behavior either.  Mozilla and their software are not the problem; Microsoft and their software are.  As a home computer user who wants to control what is running on my computer, I find this act to be yet another instance of Microsoft overstepping their boundaries and dictating their computer policy to me.  It's especially insulting when you consider Microsoft's track record on their policy's overall security.  Even having this extension in Firefox makes it less secure because it gives malware an avenue to install itself.  This line of thinking should be immediately apparent to a sysadmin who as a matter of corporate policy needs to have control over the network and each computer therein.  Microsoft essentially used your own tools against you and wrested that much control over the system away from you.</p><p>As I mentioned earlier, this is a huge concern for people like me who run Windows boxes at home and want to keep them safe.  It is apparent to me and has been for a while that if you use Microsoft products, you will never truly have "your software freedom".  I am finally taking steps to correct this issue, and it is my hope that I will soon be able to fully convert to a more open operating system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , there is a very simple solution .
Do n't install software that does things you do n't want it to do .
You 're an idiot if you think there is anything what so ever that Firefox can do to stop this sort of thing .
There is n't .
Add ons will ALWAYS be able to install themselves with out notifying you , welcome to open source , EVERYONE can see how to do it , thats a feature of open source .
There is nothing Mozilla can do to stop it short of releasing a version with some non-OSS component that can be used to prevent it from happening using digital sigs to verify that only allowed add ons are installed or not load them .
And as soon as they do that Slashdot will be ranting and raving about freedom to do whatever the hell it wants.You got your software freedom , you wanted everyone else to have the same access to the software as you do .
Great , they do , now you get to deal with the consequences of that.Though you raise good points in your post , the one I quoted above is overly reliant on the assumption that Microsoft is playing nicely with the OSS community .
Because we are reading this article on Slashdot , it should not be difficult to infer what 's really happening .
Microsoft released a closed-source , do n't-know-what-it-does extension to Firefox , which is supposed to be an open-source program .
Those of us who still run Windows rely on Microsoft 's patches to keep our systems from being gutted on the Internet .
One of these patches forces said Firefox extension on you and uses the " system add-on " feature as an end-run around not just the user 's security policy , but also that of the computer 's admin .
Plus , the update provided by Microsoft does not inform you of this installation beforehand.To be honest , I do n't really want Mozilla to try to filter this behavior either .
Mozilla and their software are not the problem ; Microsoft and their software are .
As a home computer user who wants to control what is running on my computer , I find this act to be yet another instance of Microsoft overstepping their boundaries and dictating their computer policy to me .
It 's especially insulting when you consider Microsoft 's track record on their policy 's overall security .
Even having this extension in Firefox makes it less secure because it gives malware an avenue to install itself .
This line of thinking should be immediately apparent to a sysadmin who as a matter of corporate policy needs to have control over the network and each computer therein .
Microsoft essentially used your own tools against you and wrested that much control over the system away from you.As I mentioned earlier , this is a huge concern for people like me who run Windows boxes at home and want to keep them safe .
It is apparent to me and has been for a while that if you use Microsoft products , you will never truly have " your software freedom " .
I am finally taking steps to correct this issue , and it is my hope that I will soon be able to fully convert to a more open operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, there is a very simple solution.
Don't install software that does things you don't want it to do.
You're an idiot if you think there is anything what so ever that Firefox can do to stop this sort of thing.
There isn't.
Add ons will ALWAYS be able to install themselves with out notifying you, welcome to open source, EVERYONE can see how to do it, thats a feature of open source.
There is nothing Mozilla can do to stop it short of releasing a version with some non-OSS component that can be used to prevent it from happening using digital sigs to verify that only allowed add ons are installed or not load them.
And as soon as they do that Slashdot will be ranting and raving about freedom to do whatever the hell it wants.You got your software freedom, you wanted everyone else to have the same access to the software as you do.
Great, they do, now you get to deal with the consequences of that.Though you raise good points in your post, the one I quoted above is overly reliant on the assumption that Microsoft is playing nicely with the OSS community.
Because we are reading this article on Slashdot, it should not be difficult to infer what's really happening.
Microsoft released a closed-source, don't-know-what-it-does extension to Firefox, which is supposed to be an open-source program.
Those of us who still run Windows rely on Microsoft's patches to keep our systems from being gutted on the Internet.
One of these patches forces said Firefox extension on you and uses the "system add-on" feature as an end-run around not just the user's security policy, but also that of the computer's admin.
Plus, the update provided by Microsoft does not inform you of this installation beforehand.To be honest, I don't really want Mozilla to try to filter this behavior either.
Mozilla and their software are not the problem; Microsoft and their software are.
As a home computer user who wants to control what is running on my computer, I find this act to be yet another instance of Microsoft overstepping their boundaries and dictating their computer policy to me.
It's especially insulting when you consider Microsoft's track record on their policy's overall security.
Even having this extension in Firefox makes it less secure because it gives malware an avenue to install itself.
This line of thinking should be immediately apparent to a sysadmin who as a matter of corporate policy needs to have control over the network and each computer therein.
Microsoft essentially used your own tools against you and wrested that much control over the system away from you.As I mentioned earlier, this is a huge concern for people like me who run Windows boxes at home and want to keep them safe.
It is apparent to me and has been for a while that if you use Microsoft products, you will never truly have "your software freedom".
I am finally taking steps to correct this issue, and it is my hope that I will soon be able to fully convert to a more open operating system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168403</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm... but this is old news, isn't it?</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1243872540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net-Update has "installed" this Add-On secretly for a few months now, as far as I know. It just got into the "normal" Windows auto-update stream, thus annoying more and more people? Or am I somehow mistaken?</p></div><p>It has certainly been around for some time, and I <i>think</i> it has been in updates that Joe Public gets automatically for a while too. My guess is that this reported has only just heard about it so to him (and presumably other too) is it new news.</p><p>At first it turned up as part of the Visual Studio install/servicepack, so developers got it first, I'm not sure when I first noticed it appearing on machines that had the relevant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net libraries but no VS.</p><p>I don't have a problem with the add-in existing, or it being installed by default. But being installed by default with no opt-out and with the uninstall/disable options removed from the user, is either bad customer care or plain malice (though for all the noise my inner tin-foil-hat is making I can't think of anything logical that such malice would achieve for MS, so "not caring about the customer" is the more likely option).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The .net-Update has " installed " this Add-On secretly for a few months now , as far as I know .
It just got into the " normal " Windows auto-update stream , thus annoying more and more people ?
Or am I somehow mistaken ? It has certainly been around for some time , and I think it has been in updates that Joe Public gets automatically for a while too .
My guess is that this reported has only just heard about it so to him ( and presumably other too ) is it new news.At first it turned up as part of the Visual Studio install/servicepack , so developers got it first , I 'm not sure when I first noticed it appearing on machines that had the relevant .Net libraries but no VS.I do n't have a problem with the add-in existing , or it being installed by default .
But being installed by default with no opt-out and with the uninstall/disable options removed from the user , is either bad customer care or plain malice ( though for all the noise my inner tin-foil-hat is making I ca n't think of anything logical that such malice would achieve for MS , so " not caring about the customer " is the more likely option ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The .net-Update has "installed" this Add-On secretly for a few months now, as far as I know.
It just got into the "normal" Windows auto-update stream, thus annoying more and more people?
Or am I somehow mistaken?It has certainly been around for some time, and I think it has been in updates that Joe Public gets automatically for a while too.
My guess is that this reported has only just heard about it so to him (and presumably other too) is it new news.At first it turned up as part of the Visual Studio install/servicepack, so developers got it first, I'm not sure when I first noticed it appearing on machines that had the relevant .Net libraries but no VS.I don't have a problem with the add-in existing, or it being installed by default.
But being installed by default with no opt-out and with the uninstall/disable options removed from the user, is either bad customer care or plain malice (though for all the noise my inner tin-foil-hat is making I can't think of anything logical that such malice would achieve for MS, so "not caring about the customer" is the more likely option).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168679</id>
	<title>f@ck you microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243873800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is the reason why i run on a cracked xp installation, M$ obviously doesn't deserve the consumer base they have, and I sure as hell will not let them fuck up my computer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is the reason why i run on a cracked xp installation , M $ obviously does n't deserve the consumer base they have , and I sure as hell will not let them fuck up my computer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is the reason why i run on a cracked xp installation, M$ obviously doesn't deserve the consumer base they have, and I sure as hell will not let them fuck up my computer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239</id>
	<title>fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is old news.. That extension was "added" at least a year ago i think..</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is old news.. That extension was " added " at least a year ago i think. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is old news.. That extension was "added" at least a year ago i think..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169131</id>
	<title>Opera</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera just won't run anymore for me.  "Sure let's graft ourselves to the competition that we know of... and just break everyone who won't let us attach."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera just wo n't run anymore for me .
" Sure let 's graft ourselves to the competition that we know of... and just break everyone who wo n't let us attach .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera just won't run anymore for me.
"Sure let's graft ourselves to the competition that we know of... and just break everyone who won't let us attach.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297</id>
	<title>Firefox needs to fix this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243872120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Several companies have pulled this stunt where they stealh in an addon and disable the uninstall button.   Firefox makes this too easy and needs to change how it handles addons which are not installed expressly via the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several companies have pulled this stunt where they stealh in an addon and disable the uninstall button .
Firefox makes this too easy and needs to change how it handles addons which are not installed expressly via the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several companies have pulled this stunt where they stealh in an addon and disable the uninstall button.
Firefox makes this too easy and needs to change how it handles addons which are not installed expressly via the user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170629</id>
	<title>... and I ...</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1243882680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just quietly disabled it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just quietly disabled it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just quietly disabled it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168669</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>hellocatfood</author>
	<datestamp>1243873740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do think so. I've had it disabled for the last few months. Unfortunately I can't uninstall it</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do think so .
I 've had it disabled for the last few months .
Unfortunately I ca n't uninstall it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do think so.
I've had it disabled for the last few months.
Unfortunately I can't uninstall it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28177557</id>
	<title>My only concern</title>
	<author>Xenophon Fenderson,</author>
	<datestamp>1243875600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does NoScript prevent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET applets from running unless I explicitly trust the site?  If so, then no big deal as I would have gladly downloaded this functionality separately had I know it existed (which is what I have to do with Java on all my Windows boxes).</p><p>You also might notice that both Silverlight 2 and Office 2007 add plugins to Firefox, again behavior that is congruent with at least Adobe Acrobat and Flash.  And - happy day - their execution is controlled by NoScript, so I don't mind that at all.</p><p>If anything, I'm glad to see Microsoft supporting alternative browses.  I'm almost certain that these efforts are driven by anti-trust judgements against them in a number of different jurisdictions, but that's fine with me, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does NoScript prevent .NET applets from running unless I explicitly trust the site ?
If so , then no big deal as I would have gladly downloaded this functionality separately had I know it existed ( which is what I have to do with Java on all my Windows boxes ) .You also might notice that both Silverlight 2 and Office 2007 add plugins to Firefox , again behavior that is congruent with at least Adobe Acrobat and Flash .
And - happy day - their execution is controlled by NoScript , so I do n't mind that at all.If anything , I 'm glad to see Microsoft supporting alternative browses .
I 'm almost certain that these efforts are driven by anti-trust judgements against them in a number of different jurisdictions , but that 's fine with me , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does NoScript prevent .NET applets from running unless I explicitly trust the site?
If so, then no big deal as I would have gladly downloaded this functionality separately had I know it existed (which is what I have to do with Java on all my Windows boxes).You also might notice that both Silverlight 2 and Office 2007 add plugins to Firefox, again behavior that is congruent with at least Adobe Acrobat and Flash.
And - happy day - their execution is controlled by NoScript, so I don't mind that at all.If anything, I'm glad to see Microsoft supporting alternative browses.
I'm almost certain that these efforts are driven by anti-trust judgements against them in a number of different jurisdictions, but that's fine with me, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168809</id>
	<title>How to uninstall...</title>
	<author>The Mysterious Dr. X</author>
	<datestamp>1243874460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess this was released nearly a month ago, but here's the update that lets you uninstall it: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&amp;FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&amp;FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab</a> [microsoft.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this was released nearly a month ago , but here 's the update that lets you uninstall it : http : //www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx ? displaylang = en&amp;FamilyID = cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this was released nearly a month ago, but here's the update that lets you uninstall it: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&amp;FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169257</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>devnullkac</author>
	<datestamp>1243876200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like the most direct form of Microsoft's favorite tactic against "open" competitors: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the most direct form of Microsoft 's favorite tactic against " open " competitors : Embrace , Extend , Extinguish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the most direct form of Microsoft's favorite tactic against "open" competitors: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168595</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1243873440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing I've noticed with Firefox on Vista (I just got a new-used desktop machine with it, so I'm checking it out... I've already got it dual-booting Jaunty x64) is that my downloads shit themselves. It's gotten to the point where I'm resorting to wget. I can't resume anything. I was trying to get the service pack downloadables in case I ever wanted to install Vista again. (Can't imagine why, probably just because I have a license. I have my XP license VM'd up on my laptop, too.) I have not yet disabled the extension, though. I haven't tried any big downloads since Vista SP2 but some ~9MB ones failed with weird symptoms before that, too, not just the 300+MB service packs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing I 've noticed with Firefox on Vista ( I just got a new-used desktop machine with it , so I 'm checking it out... I 've already got it dual-booting Jaunty x64 ) is that my downloads shit themselves .
It 's gotten to the point where I 'm resorting to wget .
I ca n't resume anything .
I was trying to get the service pack downloadables in case I ever wanted to install Vista again .
( Ca n't imagine why , probably just because I have a license .
I have my XP license VM 'd up on my laptop , too .
) I have not yet disabled the extension , though .
I have n't tried any big downloads since Vista SP2 but some ~ 9MB ones failed with weird symptoms before that , too , not just the 300 + MB service packs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing I've noticed with Firefox on Vista (I just got a new-used desktop machine with it, so I'm checking it out... I've already got it dual-booting Jaunty x64) is that my downloads shit themselves.
It's gotten to the point where I'm resorting to wget.
I can't resume anything.
I was trying to get the service pack downloadables in case I ever wanted to install Vista again.
(Can't imagine why, probably just because I have a license.
I have my XP license VM'd up on my laptop, too.
) I have not yet disabled the extension, though.
I haven't tried any big downloads since Vista SP2 but some ~9MB ones failed with weird symptoms before that, too, not just the 300+MB service packs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168753</id>
	<title>BIG DIFF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243874160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BIG diff: The Java plugin is not to allow silent installs of software. It's a small service to load core Java to make applets start faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BIG diff : The Java plugin is not to allow silent installs of software .
It 's a small service to load core Java to make applets start faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BIG diff: The Java plugin is not to allow silent installs of software.
It's a small service to load core Java to make applets start faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168907</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Ark42</author>
	<datestamp>1243874820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, MS released a v1.1 of the plugin, but it can't install if you left 1.0 disabled (like I did). If you re-enable the plugin, then go manually re-download and re-install the hotfix which included this plugin more recently, you will get v1.1 of the plugin, after which, you CAN uninstall it.<br>Note that disabling the plugin still leaves a string in your user-agent saying what version of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net you have installed, so either get it uninstalled, or go check and delete the right entry from general.useragent.extra.* in about:config</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , MS released a v1.1 of the plugin , but it ca n't install if you left 1.0 disabled ( like I did ) .
If you re-enable the plugin , then go manually re-download and re-install the hotfix which included this plugin more recently , you will get v1.1 of the plugin , after which , you CAN uninstall it.Note that disabling the plugin still leaves a string in your user-agent saying what version of .net you have installed , so either get it uninstalled , or go check and delete the right entry from general.useragent.extra .
* in about : config</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, MS released a v1.1 of the plugin, but it can't install if you left 1.0 disabled (like I did).
If you re-enable the plugin, then go manually re-download and re-install the hotfix which included this plugin more recently, you will get v1.1 of the plugin, after which, you CAN uninstall it.Note that disabling the plugin still leaves a string in your user-agent saying what version of .net you have installed, so either get it uninstalled, or go check and delete the right entry from general.useragent.extra.
* in about:config</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28179353</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only ones that are doing that</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1243939260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox doesn't even keep track of which extensions lock-up when starting up the browser.  If there's a bad extension, Firefox effectively goes into an infinite loop of startup crashes.  The only "easy" way to fix it is to uninstall the browser, trash the Firefox profile, and reinstall everything from scratch.  Then, you can finally install extensions one at a time to find out which one causes the problem, assuming that two extensions aren't fighting with each other.</p><p>This is why the web browser should be the new OS, of course.  It's just like the glory days of 1990 all over again, where we re-installed Windows every 6 months and spent countless hours enabling and disabling MacOS extensions and rebooting a zillion times.  What fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox does n't even keep track of which extensions lock-up when starting up the browser .
If there 's a bad extension , Firefox effectively goes into an infinite loop of startup crashes .
The only " easy " way to fix it is to uninstall the browser , trash the Firefox profile , and reinstall everything from scratch .
Then , you can finally install extensions one at a time to find out which one causes the problem , assuming that two extensions are n't fighting with each other.This is why the web browser should be the new OS , of course .
It 's just like the glory days of 1990 all over again , where we re-installed Windows every 6 months and spent countless hours enabling and disabling MacOS extensions and rebooting a zillion times .
What fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox doesn't even keep track of which extensions lock-up when starting up the browser.
If there's a bad extension, Firefox effectively goes into an infinite loop of startup crashes.
The only "easy" way to fix it is to uninstall the browser, trash the Firefox profile, and reinstall everything from scratch.
Then, you can finally install extensions one at a time to find out which one causes the problem, assuming that two extensions aren't fighting with each other.This is why the web browser should be the new OS, of course.
It's just like the glory days of 1990 all over again, where we re-installed Windows every 6 months and spent countless hours enabling and disabling MacOS extensions and rebooting a zillion times.
What fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169959</id>
	<title>The moral of the story is...</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1243879380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...If you're not already using a FOSS operating system, (Linux or FreeBSD) you probably should be.</p><p>Microsoft bet on people not wanting to exercise personal responsibility; that is how they make their money.  Windows makes life easier for you by providing you with a scenario where you don't need to take a month or so of your time to customise an open source operating system in order for it to be exactly the way you want it.</p><p>However, understand that like with anything else, an exchange is happening here.  You want them to provide you with convenience, to make it easy for you, and to basically do pretty much everything for you.  They therefore have every right (because you've given it to them) to screw you in whatever manner they feel like.  If you uncompromisingly, unthinkingly give them responsibility for your welfare, don't be surprised when they do something which isn't in your best interests.</p><p>You can't have it both ways.  You can't buy a fast food operating system and relinquish responsibility to a corporation in that manner on the one hand, and then expect it is going to be entirely and exclusively beneficial to you on the other.</p><p>It is a law of the universe; there is no free lunch, and in one way or another, you pay for everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...If you 're not already using a FOSS operating system , ( Linux or FreeBSD ) you probably should be.Microsoft bet on people not wanting to exercise personal responsibility ; that is how they make their money .
Windows makes life easier for you by providing you with a scenario where you do n't need to take a month or so of your time to customise an open source operating system in order for it to be exactly the way you want it.However , understand that like with anything else , an exchange is happening here .
You want them to provide you with convenience , to make it easy for you , and to basically do pretty much everything for you .
They therefore have every right ( because you 've given it to them ) to screw you in whatever manner they feel like .
If you uncompromisingly , unthinkingly give them responsibility for your welfare , do n't be surprised when they do something which is n't in your best interests.You ca n't have it both ways .
You ca n't buy a fast food operating system and relinquish responsibility to a corporation in that manner on the one hand , and then expect it is going to be entirely and exclusively beneficial to you on the other.It is a law of the universe ; there is no free lunch , and in one way or another , you pay for everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...If you're not already using a FOSS operating system, (Linux or FreeBSD) you probably should be.Microsoft bet on people not wanting to exercise personal responsibility; that is how they make their money.
Windows makes life easier for you by providing you with a scenario where you don't need to take a month or so of your time to customise an open source operating system in order for it to be exactly the way you want it.However, understand that like with anything else, an exchange is happening here.
You want them to provide you with convenience, to make it easy for you, and to basically do pretty much everything for you.
They therefore have every right (because you've given it to them) to screw you in whatever manner they feel like.
If you uncompromisingly, unthinkingly give them responsibility for your welfare, don't be surprised when they do something which isn't in your best interests.You can't have it both ways.
You can't buy a fast food operating system and relinquish responsibility to a corporation in that manner on the one hand, and then expect it is going to be entirely and exclusively beneficial to you on the other.It is a law of the universe; there is no free lunch, and in one way or another, you pay for everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168523</id>
	<title>Re:Some Left Over Stupidity from the Last Millenni</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1243873140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't have a problem with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as long as we're not heading back to blurring the line between what the browser should have access to (certain user space files) and what the browser inadvertently has access to (.NET libraries right in the kernel).</p></div></blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I sure hope they come up with a way to run ActiveX in Firefox, I want seamless integration of my botnet...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have a problem with the .NET framework ... as long as we 're not heading back to blurring the line between what the browser should have access to ( certain user space files ) and what the browser inadvertently has access to ( .NET libraries right in the kernel ) .
        I sure hope they come up with a way to run ActiveX in Firefox , I want seamless integration of my botnet.. .         Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have a problem with the .NET framework ... as long as we're not heading back to blurring the line between what the browser should have access to (certain user space files) and what the browser inadvertently has access to (.NET libraries right in the kernel).
        I sure hope they come up with a way to run ActiveX in Firefox, I want seamless integration of my botnet...
        Brett
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174759</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>genericpoweruser</author>
	<datestamp>1243855020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with this sentiment.<br>I want Firefox to keep my extensions up to date but browsing is more important to me than that. I'd like the following options:<br>1) Firefox should not check for updates on startup (which more than likely slows it down) and instead defer it by like 5 minutes.<br>2) Updates should not pester me to restart, but should wait until I close the browser on my own accord.<br>3) And finally, when an addon is updated, it should not redirect me to the addon's homepage.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with this sentiment.I want Firefox to keep my extensions up to date but browsing is more important to me than that .
I 'd like the following options : 1 ) Firefox should not check for updates on startup ( which more than likely slows it down ) and instead defer it by like 5 minutes.2 ) Updates should not pester me to restart , but should wait until I close the browser on my own accord.3 ) And finally , when an addon is updated , it should not redirect me to the addon 's homepage .
/rant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with this sentiment.I want Firefox to keep my extensions up to date but browsing is more important to me than that.
I'd like the following options:1) Firefox should not check for updates on startup (which more than likely slows it down) and instead defer it by like 5 minutes.2) Updates should not pester me to restart, but should wait until I close the browser on my own accord.3) And finally, when an addon is updated, it should not redirect me to the addon's homepage.
/rant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28180515</id>
	<title>Uh...</title>
	<author>silver007</author>
	<datestamp>1243949580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This same thing was reported here after the last big update release. Guess I'll wait, for my own entertainment, and see if it's reported again after the next Vista update package.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This same thing was reported here after the last big update release .
Guess I 'll wait , for my own entertainment , and see if it 's reported again after the next Vista update package .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This same thing was reported here after the last big update release.
Guess I'll wait, for my own entertainment, and see if it's reported again after the next Vista update package.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28177411</id>
	<title>If this is the case then...</title>
	<author>RsJtSu</author>
	<datestamp>1243874280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I sold you my house, I should have every right to walk in without you knowing and install something of my choosing. What does it do?
<p>
Well I just wanted to tell everyone that every house I've lived in has had a light switch that does nothing, so I thought I would add one to your ceiling. Don't worry, it will be out of the way.
</p><p>Does it hurt anything? No, does it piss you the hell off to know there is a light switch on your ceiling now for no reason and you didn't ask to have it put there? You're damn right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I sold you my house , I should have every right to walk in without you knowing and install something of my choosing .
What does it do ?
Well I just wanted to tell everyone that every house I 've lived in has had a light switch that does nothing , so I thought I would add one to your ceiling .
Do n't worry , it will be out of the way .
Does it hurt anything ?
No , does it piss you the hell off to know there is a light switch on your ceiling now for no reason and you did n't ask to have it put there ?
You 're damn right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I sold you my house, I should have every right to walk in without you knowing and install something of my choosing.
What does it do?
Well I just wanted to tell everyone that every house I've lived in has had a light switch that does nothing, so I thought I would add one to your ceiling.
Don't worry, it will be out of the way.
Does it hurt anything?
No, does it piss you the hell off to know there is a light switch on your ceiling now for no reason and you didn't ask to have it put there?
You're damn right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169013</id>
	<title>No .NET in Kernel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET libraries in the kernel. It's all user space. Just like Java,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET runs in a sandbox - web applets cannot touch or see your disk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no .NET libraries in the kernel .
It 's all user space .
Just like Java , .NET runs in a sandbox - web applets can not touch or see your disk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no .NET libraries in the kernel.
It's all user space.
Just like Java, .NET runs in a sandbox - web applets cannot touch or see your disk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169059</id>
	<title>Annoying, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is annoying is that it's installed without warnings or questions asked. The good part may be that it provides (or could provide) some functionality and M$ is finally acknowledging the percentage of Firefox users out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is annoying is that it 's installed without warnings or questions asked .
The good part may be that it provides ( or could provide ) some functionality and M $ is finally acknowledging the percentage of Firefox users out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is annoying is that it's installed without warnings or questions asked.
The good part may be that it provides (or could provide) some functionality and M$ is finally acknowledging the percentage of Firefox users out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168383</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243872480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw this and got a vision of the Family guy episode when Stewie hopped a plane and got past security pretending to be part of another family. I giggled at the fam guy thought, and grimaced when i remembered why i was remembering it. More and more I feel myself pulled to what I have long regarded as the 'Dark Side'.. the realm of half eaten fruit..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw this and got a vision of the Family guy episode when Stewie hopped a plane and got past security pretending to be part of another family .
I giggled at the fam guy thought , and grimaced when i remembered why i was remembering it .
More and more I feel myself pulled to what I have long regarded as the 'Dark Side'.. the realm of half eaten fruit. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw this and got a vision of the Family guy episode when Stewie hopped a plane and got past security pretending to be part of another family.
I giggled at the fam guy thought, and grimaced when i remembered why i was remembering it.
More and more I feel myself pulled to what I have long regarded as the 'Dark Side'.. the realm of half eaten fruit..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168745</id>
	<title>Problem fixed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243874100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, just checked since there was an "update", and I was able to uninstall the plug-in via the Firefox Add-On's window. Rabid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s can calm down now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , just checked since there was an " update " , and I was able to uninstall the plug-in via the Firefox Add-On 's window .
Rabid / .
's can calm down now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, just checked since there was an "update", and I was able to uninstall the plug-in via the Firefox Add-On's window.
Rabid /.
's can calm down now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175165</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of previous discussion</title>
	<author>LaskoVortex</author>
	<datestamp>1243857120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to mod you over rated, but I won't.<p><div class="quote"><p>1) Microsoft does notify you if you actually read the information about what you are downloading.</p></div><p>In the fine print? You know that's BS. How about a dialog that says "do you want to modify your firefox install with our blah blah extension y/n?" You know and I know that fine print on an FF (thanks for explaining the acronym by the way) is not read by end users.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Firefox also notifies you when it starts up. If you don't want it just click disable.</p></div><p>Most users don't remember what they installed and think that it was already there so they must have authorized it at some point or maybe that some IT guy did. We are not talking about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. guru-geeks, we are talking about clueless office workers and casual home users--99\% of the market.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Adobe Acrobat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Firefox is not an Adobe application !!! [etc]</p></div><p>Adobe Acrobat is not a browser--it is not a <b>competing product</b>. None of the examples you listed are competing products. You can't make the distinction? The crux of the problem is a <b>conflict of interests</b>--and whose interests is MS going to look out for when it installs an extension to a competing product?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to mod you over rated , but I wo n't.1 ) Microsoft does notify you if you actually read the information about what you are downloading.In the fine print ?
You know that 's BS .
How about a dialog that says " do you want to modify your firefox install with our blah blah extension y/n ?
" You know and I know that fine print on an FF ( thanks for explaining the acronym by the way ) is not read by end users.2 ) Firefox also notifies you when it starts up .
If you do n't want it just click disable.Most users do n't remember what they installed and think that it was already there so they must have authorized it at some point or maybe that some IT guy did .
We are not talking about / .
guru-geeks , we are talking about clueless office workers and casual home users--99 \ % of the market.1 ) Adobe Acrobat .. Firefox is not an Adobe application ! ! !
[ etc ] Adobe Acrobat is not a browser--it is not a competing product .
None of the examples you listed are competing products .
You ca n't make the distinction ?
The crux of the problem is a conflict of interests--and whose interests is MS going to look out for when it installs an extension to a competing product ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to mod you over rated, but I won't.1) Microsoft does notify you if you actually read the information about what you are downloading.In the fine print?
You know that's BS.
How about a dialog that says "do you want to modify your firefox install with our blah blah extension y/n?
" You know and I know that fine print on an FF (thanks for explaining the acronym by the way) is not read by end users.2) Firefox also notifies you when it starts up.
If you don't want it just click disable.Most users don't remember what they installed and think that it was already there so they must have authorized it at some point or maybe that some IT guy did.
We are not talking about /.
guru-geeks, we are talking about clueless office workers and casual home users--99\% of the market.1) Adobe Acrobat .. Firefox is not an Adobe application !!!
[etc]Adobe Acrobat is not a browser--it is not a competing product.
None of the examples you listed are competing products.
You can't make the distinction?
The crux of the problem is a conflict of interests--and whose interests is MS going to look out for when it installs an extension to a competing product?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169685</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Nakor BlueRider</author>
	<datestamp>1243878060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS has instructions here for the extension's manual removal, for any who want them:<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/963707" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">How to manually remove the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant for Firefox</a> [microsoft.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS has instructions here for the extension 's manual removal , for any who want them :     How to manually remove the .NET Framework Assistant for Firefox [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS has instructions here for the extension's manual removal, for any who want them:
  
  How to manually remove the .NET Framework Assistant for Firefox [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169479</id>
	<title>Re:How to disable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243877100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tools &gt; Add-Ons &gt; Plugins &gt; Disable all Microsoft plugins.. </p></div><p>Note that this doesn't disable sending the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET CLR version in the Firefox http user agent string.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tools &gt; Add-Ons &gt; Plugins &gt; Disable all Microsoft plugins.. Note that this does n't disable sending the .NET CLR version in the Firefox http user agent string .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tools &gt; Add-Ons &gt; Plugins &gt; Disable all Microsoft plugins.. Note that this doesn't disable sending the .NET CLR version in the Firefox http user agent string.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28181635</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is old news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is old news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is old news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28192303</id>
	<title>Re:Some Left Over Stupidity from the Last Millenni</title>
	<author>Allador</author>
	<datestamp>1243969440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny is, the real thing they stole the feature (Sun Java) does it very happily without having anything installed to "extensions" or "plugins". Java Webstart. Of course, it is ages ahead of the copier too.</p></div><p>Dont you just love it when people get self-righteous about something that they're dead wrong about?</p><p>The reality is that the JRE DOES use a plugin.</p><p>In fact, if you took 8 seconds to look in the plugins of your FF, you'd see that Java did install one (or probably more) plugins to work within FF.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is something called "file types" on all operating systems down to Symbian on handhelds. You register filetype with helper app and expect browser to pick it from that database. It works on my Symbian S60 128MB RAM having handset<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>No, it doesnt.  What you're describing is how the OS Shell handles what applications to launch with what file types.</p><p>Having browsers very explicitly NOT do that was a major step forward in security, done many many years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny is , the real thing they stole the feature ( Sun Java ) does it very happily without having anything installed to " extensions " or " plugins " .
Java Webstart .
Of course , it is ages ahead of the copier too.Dont you just love it when people get self-righteous about something that they 're dead wrong about ? The reality is that the JRE DOES use a plugin.In fact , if you took 8 seconds to look in the plugins of your FF , you 'd see that Java did install one ( or probably more ) plugins to work within FF.There is something called " file types " on all operating systems down to Symbian on handhelds .
You register filetype with helper app and expect browser to pick it from that database .
It works on my Symbian S60 128MB RAM having handset : ) No , it doesnt .
What you 're describing is how the OS Shell handles what applications to launch with what file types.Having browsers very explicitly NOT do that was a major step forward in security , done many many years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny is, the real thing they stole the feature (Sun Java) does it very happily without having anything installed to "extensions" or "plugins".
Java Webstart.
Of course, it is ages ahead of the copier too.Dont you just love it when people get self-righteous about something that they're dead wrong about?The reality is that the JRE DOES use a plugin.In fact, if you took 8 seconds to look in the plugins of your FF, you'd see that Java did install one (or probably more) plugins to work within FF.There is something called "file types" on all operating systems down to Symbian on handhelds.
You register filetype with helper app and expect browser to pick it from that database.
It works on my Symbian S60 128MB RAM having handset :)No, it doesnt.
What you're describing is how the OS Shell handles what applications to launch with what file types.Having browsers very explicitly NOT do that was a major step forward in security, done many many years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169021</id>
	<title>Important Dupe</title>
	<author>jonathanhowell</author>
	<datestamp>1243875240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a dupe.<br>
<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218</a> [slashdot.org] <br>
<br>
Even so, it's important to point out the transgressions of companies like Microsoft (SCO, Apple, Google,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a dupe .
http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/02/01/2143218 [ slashdot.org ] Even so , it 's important to point out the transgressions of companies like Microsoft ( SCO , Apple , Google , ... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a dupe.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218 [slashdot.org] 

Even so, it's important to point out the transgressions of companies like Microsoft (SCO, Apple, Google, ...).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox needs to fix this.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1243875180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't 'stealth'ing in an add or nor are they 'disabling' the uninstall button.</p><p>The 'uninstall' button is for user specific addons, not system wide add ons.  The uninstall button has never worked for system wide addon installations.  It is a feature, and a required one if you expect Firefox to actually get anywhere in the business world.  This is done by adding a single registry key and can be done for ANY add on, regardless of who makes it or where it is installed.</p><p>It serves two purposes.  First it allows things to install add ons before the browser is installed so that when you later install Firefox it will be aware of existing items and not require you to jump through hoops to get them to work.  Second, it allows administrators and other software packages to install something globally, for all users of the host, without requiring each user to manually install the add on and keep it updated.</p><p>I'm sorry that this doesn't fall into your narrow little view of the world, but for the rest of us this sort of thing is a requirement to use Firefox in the business world.</p><p>Finally, there is a very simple solution.  Don't install software that does things you don't want it to do.  You're an idiot if you think there is anything what so ever that Firefox can do to stop this sort of thing.  There isn't.  Add ons will ALWAYS be able to install themselves with out notifying you, welcome to open source, EVERYONE can see how to do it, thats a feature of open source.  There is nothing Mozilla can do to stop it short of releasing a version with some non-OSS component that can be used to prevent it from happening using digital sigs to verify that only allowed add ons are installed or not load them.  And as soon as they do that Slashdot will be ranting and raving about freedom to do whatever the hell it wants.</p><p>You got your software freedom, you wanted everyone else to have the same access to the software as you do.  Great, they do, now you get to deal with the consequences of that.</p><p>Its not like user add-ons can't do the EXACT SAME THING.  All you need to do is remove write permissions from your own files when you startup and Firefox won't do shit when you tell it to uninstall it except throw an error.  Any add on can do that, and Firefox is unlikely to ever 'fix' that problem as its one that Firefox shouldn't be responsible for.</p><p>You can fix the problem on your computer yourself to make sure this doesn't happen with some registry permissions in HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mozilla, take away all write/modify access to this key from everyone after you've installed Firefox.  Problem solved.  That is where various addons for Mozilla software can be installed globally by a system administrator.</p><p>As for Firefox removing that feature, go ahead and let that happen.  Find out how many IT departments suddenly want even less to do with Firefox.  I'm sure they'll love you for having it removed when they have to do something retarded like run a login script to roll out extensions rather than just pushing a registry change via group policy.</p><p>The worst part is that this gets modded insightful.  This isn't fucking insightful, its ignorant, short sided and shows a complete lack of understanding about whats going on and why.</p><p>Whats worse is ignorant dipshit comments like this end up making me fucking defend Microsoft.</p><p>Get a clue, then start bashing, people with far more intelligence and understanding of this sort of thing work on it, not you, ever consider there MAY be a reason?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't 'stealth'ing in an add or nor are they 'disabling ' the uninstall button.The 'uninstall ' button is for user specific addons , not system wide add ons .
The uninstall button has never worked for system wide addon installations .
It is a feature , and a required one if you expect Firefox to actually get anywhere in the business world .
This is done by adding a single registry key and can be done for ANY add on , regardless of who makes it or where it is installed.It serves two purposes .
First it allows things to install add ons before the browser is installed so that when you later install Firefox it will be aware of existing items and not require you to jump through hoops to get them to work .
Second , it allows administrators and other software packages to install something globally , for all users of the host , without requiring each user to manually install the add on and keep it updated.I 'm sorry that this does n't fall into your narrow little view of the world , but for the rest of us this sort of thing is a requirement to use Firefox in the business world.Finally , there is a very simple solution .
Do n't install software that does things you do n't want it to do .
You 're an idiot if you think there is anything what so ever that Firefox can do to stop this sort of thing .
There is n't .
Add ons will ALWAYS be able to install themselves with out notifying you , welcome to open source , EVERYONE can see how to do it , thats a feature of open source .
There is nothing Mozilla can do to stop it short of releasing a version with some non-OSS component that can be used to prevent it from happening using digital sigs to verify that only allowed add ons are installed or not load them .
And as soon as they do that Slashdot will be ranting and raving about freedom to do whatever the hell it wants.You got your software freedom , you wanted everyone else to have the same access to the software as you do .
Great , they do , now you get to deal with the consequences of that.Its not like user add-ons ca n't do the EXACT SAME THING .
All you need to do is remove write permissions from your own files when you startup and Firefox wo n't do shit when you tell it to uninstall it except throw an error .
Any add on can do that , and Firefox is unlikely to ever 'fix ' that problem as its one that Firefox should n't be responsible for.You can fix the problem on your computer yourself to make sure this does n't happen with some registry permissions in HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ Mozilla , take away all write/modify access to this key from everyone after you 've installed Firefox .
Problem solved .
That is where various addons for Mozilla software can be installed globally by a system administrator.As for Firefox removing that feature , go ahead and let that happen .
Find out how many IT departments suddenly want even less to do with Firefox .
I 'm sure they 'll love you for having it removed when they have to do something retarded like run a login script to roll out extensions rather than just pushing a registry change via group policy.The worst part is that this gets modded insightful .
This is n't fucking insightful , its ignorant , short sided and shows a complete lack of understanding about whats going on and why.Whats worse is ignorant dipshit comments like this end up making me fucking defend Microsoft.Get a clue , then start bashing , people with far more intelligence and understanding of this sort of thing work on it , not you , ever consider there MAY be a reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't 'stealth'ing in an add or nor are they 'disabling' the uninstall button.The 'uninstall' button is for user specific addons, not system wide add ons.
The uninstall button has never worked for system wide addon installations.
It is a feature, and a required one if you expect Firefox to actually get anywhere in the business world.
This is done by adding a single registry key and can be done for ANY add on, regardless of who makes it or where it is installed.It serves two purposes.
First it allows things to install add ons before the browser is installed so that when you later install Firefox it will be aware of existing items and not require you to jump through hoops to get them to work.
Second, it allows administrators and other software packages to install something globally, for all users of the host, without requiring each user to manually install the add on and keep it updated.I'm sorry that this doesn't fall into your narrow little view of the world, but for the rest of us this sort of thing is a requirement to use Firefox in the business world.Finally, there is a very simple solution.
Don't install software that does things you don't want it to do.
You're an idiot if you think there is anything what so ever that Firefox can do to stop this sort of thing.
There isn't.
Add ons will ALWAYS be able to install themselves with out notifying you, welcome to open source, EVERYONE can see how to do it, thats a feature of open source.
There is nothing Mozilla can do to stop it short of releasing a version with some non-OSS component that can be used to prevent it from happening using digital sigs to verify that only allowed add ons are installed or not load them.
And as soon as they do that Slashdot will be ranting and raving about freedom to do whatever the hell it wants.You got your software freedom, you wanted everyone else to have the same access to the software as you do.
Great, they do, now you get to deal with the consequences of that.Its not like user add-ons can't do the EXACT SAME THING.
All you need to do is remove write permissions from your own files when you startup and Firefox won't do shit when you tell it to uninstall it except throw an error.
Any add on can do that, and Firefox is unlikely to ever 'fix' that problem as its one that Firefox shouldn't be responsible for.You can fix the problem on your computer yourself to make sure this doesn't happen with some registry permissions in HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mozilla, take away all write/modify access to this key from everyone after you've installed Firefox.
Problem solved.
That is where various addons for Mozilla software can be installed globally by a system administrator.As for Firefox removing that feature, go ahead and let that happen.
Find out how many IT departments suddenly want even less to do with Firefox.
I'm sure they'll love you for having it removed when they have to do something retarded like run a login script to roll out extensions rather than just pushing a registry change via group policy.The worst part is that this gets modded insightful.
This isn't fucking insightful, its ignorant, short sided and shows a complete lack of understanding about whats going on and why.Whats worse is ignorant dipshit comments like this end up making me fucking defend Microsoft.Get a clue, then start bashing, people with far more intelligence and understanding of this sort of thing work on it, not you, ever consider there MAY be a reason?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168951</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>th3rtythr33</author>
	<datestamp>1243875060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how many more lives must this Extension claim before we stop ignoring the "a new add-on was installed" message when we start our Firefoxen?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how many more lives must this Extension claim before we stop ignoring the " a new add-on was installed " message when we start our Firefoxen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how many more lives must this Extension claim before we stop ignoring the "a new add-on was installed" message when we start our Firefoxen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168447</id>
	<title>Attention!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243872720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would everyone who voted this old news to the front page kindly line up...thank you.</p><p>*SLAP*</p><p>*SLAP*</p><p>*SLAP*</p><p>*SLAP*</p><p>(etc...)</p><p>Now, don't do it again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would everyone who voted this old news to the front page kindly line up...thank you. * SLAP * * SLAP * * SLAP * * SLAP * ( etc.. .
) Now , do n't do it again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would everyone who voted this old news to the front page kindly line up...thank you.*SLAP**SLAP**SLAP**SLAP*(etc...
)Now, don't do it again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169595</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243877700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its not just M$ other companies do this, "QuickTime" for example. I think you are reading to much into it to appease your fellow readers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not just M $ other companies do this , " QuickTime " for example .
I think you are reading to much into it to appease your fellow readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not just M$ other companies do this, "QuickTime" for example.
I think you are reading to much into it to appease your fellow readers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170125</id>
	<title>Gnashing my Teeth</title>
	<author>Thumper\_SVX</author>
	<datestamp>1243880340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm grinding and gnashing my teeth, but not for the reasons everyone else is.</p><p>OK, I hate to defend Microsoft, but they absolutely stated this Firefox extension was to be installed in the release notes for the patch; http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=CECC62DC-96A7-4657-AF91-6383BA034EAB&amp;displaylang=en</p><p>Also, as I recall this patch was one of those ones that requires you to click "Agree" or somesuch before installation despite setting to automatically download and install updates.</p><p>All of this crap occurs because people don't bother to read release notes any more. They would rather someone else take responsibility for their machines. Well you know what? Microsoft does just that, on a requested and as-needed basis. If you'd rather manage your own patches, then damn it... do it. But do it properly; read the bloody release notes so you know what's going on your machine. If you would rather Microsoft take that responsibility for your machine from you, then do that... but don't bitch when they do something you don't expect because you asked them to just take care of it for you.</p><p>Now, I'm not saying there's not other issues at play here; like installing a patch into a competing product and the potential ethical concerns therein... but can this not be construed as (a) a tacit approval of Firefox as a "valid" third-party browser and (b) an attempt to ensure that the user who requested that Microsoft take charge of their experience get the best experience possible?</p><p>OK, I will say before I get lynched that I don't really like this too much, myself... I don't much appreciate when people do stuff to my machines that I don't like... but I also accept that this is inevitable. If you turn ANY part of your systems management over to a third party, sometimes they're going to do things that you disagree with. This is only even vaguely newsworthy because it doesn't happen that often. At least, not as often as it could.</p><p>If you really don't like it, disable it. And if you don't want this happening again, then start doing your patching the old fashioned way; by downloading the patches by hand and installing them. But don't start crying when they do something unexpected because you didn't read the agreement you agreed to, or read the release notes to understand what the patch is doing.</p><p>This is NOT a failure of Microsoft OR Firefox. This is a failure of the user community who would rather hand off their systems management to a third party, and the "advanced" user community who just blindly install patches and updates with no attempt to research the implications of said update.</p><p>Me? I'm primarily a Mac and Gentoo user... and yes, I understand that on my Mac I'll get updates from Apple that do much the same stuff as this... but I also read the release notes that are handily downloaded with the patches... that way I know what to expect. With Gentoo, I do the same. I use Windows at work, and manage a large network of systems... and yes, this patch was deployed to my client base... and yes, the Firefox users have the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET plugin... and yes, they can disable it if they like. In our regression testing, the plugin appeared to have little to no impact on the client system other than adding yet another add on to the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm grinding and gnashing my teeth , but not for the reasons everyone else is.OK , I hate to defend Microsoft , but they absolutely stated this Firefox extension was to be installed in the release notes for the patch ; http : //www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx ? FamilyID = CECC62DC-96A7-4657-AF91-6383BA034EAB&amp;displaylang = enAlso , as I recall this patch was one of those ones that requires you to click " Agree " or somesuch before installation despite setting to automatically download and install updates.All of this crap occurs because people do n't bother to read release notes any more .
They would rather someone else take responsibility for their machines .
Well you know what ?
Microsoft does just that , on a requested and as-needed basis .
If you 'd rather manage your own patches , then damn it... do it .
But do it properly ; read the bloody release notes so you know what 's going on your machine .
If you would rather Microsoft take that responsibility for your machine from you , then do that... but do n't bitch when they do something you do n't expect because you asked them to just take care of it for you.Now , I 'm not saying there 's not other issues at play here ; like installing a patch into a competing product and the potential ethical concerns therein... but can this not be construed as ( a ) a tacit approval of Firefox as a " valid " third-party browser and ( b ) an attempt to ensure that the user who requested that Microsoft take charge of their experience get the best experience possible ? OK , I will say before I get lynched that I do n't really like this too much , myself... I do n't much appreciate when people do stuff to my machines that I do n't like... but I also accept that this is inevitable .
If you turn ANY part of your systems management over to a third party , sometimes they 're going to do things that you disagree with .
This is only even vaguely newsworthy because it does n't happen that often .
At least , not as often as it could.If you really do n't like it , disable it .
And if you do n't want this happening again , then start doing your patching the old fashioned way ; by downloading the patches by hand and installing them .
But do n't start crying when they do something unexpected because you did n't read the agreement you agreed to , or read the release notes to understand what the patch is doing.This is NOT a failure of Microsoft OR Firefox .
This is a failure of the user community who would rather hand off their systems management to a third party , and the " advanced " user community who just blindly install patches and updates with no attempt to research the implications of said update.Me ?
I 'm primarily a Mac and Gentoo user... and yes , I understand that on my Mac I 'll get updates from Apple that do much the same stuff as this... but I also read the release notes that are handily downloaded with the patches... that way I know what to expect .
With Gentoo , I do the same .
I use Windows at work , and manage a large network of systems... and yes , this patch was deployed to my client base... and yes , the Firefox users have the .NET plugin... and yes , they can disable it if they like .
In our regression testing , the plugin appeared to have little to no impact on the client system other than adding yet another add on to the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm grinding and gnashing my teeth, but not for the reasons everyone else is.OK, I hate to defend Microsoft, but they absolutely stated this Firefox extension was to be installed in the release notes for the patch; http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=CECC62DC-96A7-4657-AF91-6383BA034EAB&amp;displaylang=enAlso, as I recall this patch was one of those ones that requires you to click "Agree" or somesuch before installation despite setting to automatically download and install updates.All of this crap occurs because people don't bother to read release notes any more.
They would rather someone else take responsibility for their machines.
Well you know what?
Microsoft does just that, on a requested and as-needed basis.
If you'd rather manage your own patches, then damn it... do it.
But do it properly; read the bloody release notes so you know what's going on your machine.
If you would rather Microsoft take that responsibility for your machine from you, then do that... but don't bitch when they do something you don't expect because you asked them to just take care of it for you.Now, I'm not saying there's not other issues at play here; like installing a patch into a competing product and the potential ethical concerns therein... but can this not be construed as (a) a tacit approval of Firefox as a "valid" third-party browser and (b) an attempt to ensure that the user who requested that Microsoft take charge of their experience get the best experience possible?OK, I will say before I get lynched that I don't really like this too much, myself... I don't much appreciate when people do stuff to my machines that I don't like... but I also accept that this is inevitable.
If you turn ANY part of your systems management over to a third party, sometimes they're going to do things that you disagree with.
This is only even vaguely newsworthy because it doesn't happen that often.
At least, not as often as it could.If you really don't like it, disable it.
And if you don't want this happening again, then start doing your patching the old fashioned way; by downloading the patches by hand and installing them.
But don't start crying when they do something unexpected because you didn't read the agreement you agreed to, or read the release notes to understand what the patch is doing.This is NOT a failure of Microsoft OR Firefox.
This is a failure of the user community who would rather hand off their systems management to a third party, and the "advanced" user community who just blindly install patches and updates with no attempt to research the implications of said update.Me?
I'm primarily a Mac and Gentoo user... and yes, I understand that on my Mac I'll get updates from Apple that do much the same stuff as this... but I also read the release notes that are handily downloaded with the patches... that way I know what to expect.
With Gentoo, I do the same.
I use Windows at work, and manage a large network of systems... and yes, this patch was deployed to my client base... and yes, the Firefox users have the .NET plugin... and yes, they can disable it if they like.
In our regression testing, the plugin appeared to have little to no impact on the client system other than adding yet another add on to the list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168919</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise!</title>
	<author>fatray</author>
	<datestamp>1243874880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox is a competitor to Microsoft. Automatically installing extensions to your competitor's products really is an innovative idea. I wonder if Microsoft has a patent on this?</p><p>This could be misused, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is a competitor to Microsoft .
Automatically installing extensions to your competitor 's products really is an innovative idea .
I wonder if Microsoft has a patent on this ? This could be misused , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is a competitor to Microsoft.
Automatically installing extensions to your competitor's products really is an innovative idea.
I wonder if Microsoft has a patent on this?This could be misused, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169425</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievably Evil</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1243876920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it evil exactly?  Its rather common practice that when software that works with a browser is installed to go ahead and install the browser plugin.  You installed the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework.  It is intended to work inside a browser.  You updated the software with a new feature that adds support for Firefox via this extension.</p><p>So, why exactly is this so evil?  So far it has required YOU to make several choices that resulted in this happening, not doing any of them would have prevented it.  You installed the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework and you enabled auto-updates.</p><p>Simple solution, turn off auto updates and pay more attention to what you install.  You being ignorant of what you are doing on your computer doesn't make them evil, just makes you stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it evil exactly ?
Its rather common practice that when software that works with a browser is installed to go ahead and install the browser plugin .
You installed the .NET framework .
It is intended to work inside a browser .
You updated the software with a new feature that adds support for Firefox via this extension.So , why exactly is this so evil ?
So far it has required YOU to make several choices that resulted in this happening , not doing any of them would have prevented it .
You installed the .NET framework and you enabled auto-updates.Simple solution , turn off auto updates and pay more attention to what you install .
You being ignorant of what you are doing on your computer does n't make them evil , just makes you stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it evil exactly?
Its rather common practice that when software that works with a browser is installed to go ahead and install the browser plugin.
You installed the .NET framework.
It is intended to work inside a browser.
You updated the software with a new feature that adds support for Firefox via this extension.So, why exactly is this so evil?
So far it has required YOU to make several choices that resulted in this happening, not doing any of them would have prevented it.
You installed the .NET framework and you enabled auto-updates.Simple solution, turn off auto updates and pay more attention to what you install.
You being ignorant of what you are doing on your computer doesn't make them evil, just makes you stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168549</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>impaledsunset</author>
	<datestamp>1243873260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure that's the same one? There is no mention what extension it is in the summary (no, I didn't RTFS, but I asked a friend to read and summarize it for me). This might be a new one. Like one that makes Firefox use Trident, support ActiveX and use Bing as a default search! Oh noes! Just imagine! It could also include eat babies, remove Linux related stories from Slashdot, add DRM and even be incompatible with the GPL! Don't downplay it! That's serious!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure that 's the same one ?
There is no mention what extension it is in the summary ( no , I did n't RTFS , but I asked a friend to read and summarize it for me ) .
This might be a new one .
Like one that makes Firefox use Trident , support ActiveX and use Bing as a default search !
Oh noes !
Just imagine !
It could also include eat babies , remove Linux related stories from Slashdot , add DRM and even be incompatible with the GPL !
Do n't downplay it !
That 's serious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure that's the same one?
There is no mention what extension it is in the summary (no, I didn't RTFS, but I asked a friend to read and summarize it for me).
This might be a new one.
Like one that makes Firefox use Trident, support ActiveX and use Bing as a default search!
Oh noes!
Just imagine!
It could also include eat babies, remove Linux related stories from Slashdot, add DRM and even be incompatible with the GPL!
Don't downplay it!
That's serious!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168767</id>
	<title>I don't have it</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1243874220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using Vista for a awhile now, and my machine is up to date, and yet I don't have this addon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Vista for a awhile now , and my machine is up to date , and yet I do n't have this addon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Vista for a awhile now, and my machine is up to date, and yet I don't have this addon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169175</id>
	<title>Re:Some Left Over Stupidity from the Last Millenni</title>
	<author>nvrrobx</author>
	<datestamp>1243875840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How you got modded up as insightful is amazing.
<br> <br>
Have you ever taken a look at your User Agent string?  It sends your browser and your operating system to the server, and in many cases, it can send extensions that exist in your browser.  Examples:
<br> <br>
Mozilla/5.001 (windows; U; NT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0) Gecko/25250101
<br> <br>
Or my current user agent:
<br> <br>
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10\_5\_7; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Safari/528.17
<br> <br>
Unless you're setting your User-Agent to something like, "ImABrowser (Some computer; Some proc; Some OS; Some language)" stop sounding the alarm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How you got modded up as insightful is amazing .
Have you ever taken a look at your User Agent string ?
It sends your browser and your operating system to the server , and in many cases , it can send extensions that exist in your browser .
Examples : Mozilla/5.001 ( windows ; U ; NT4.0 ; en-US ; rv : 1.0 ) Gecko/25250101 Or my current user agent : Mozilla/5.0 ( Macintosh ; U ; Intel Mac OS X 10 \ _5 \ _7 ; en-us ) AppleWebKit/528.18.1 ( KHTML , like Gecko ) Version/4.0 Safari/528.17 Unless you 're setting your User-Agent to something like , " ImABrowser ( Some computer ; Some proc ; Some OS ; Some language ) " stop sounding the alarm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How you got modded up as insightful is amazing.
Have you ever taken a look at your User Agent string?
It sends your browser and your operating system to the server, and in many cases, it can send extensions that exist in your browser.
Examples:
 
Mozilla/5.001 (windows; U; NT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0) Gecko/25250101
 
Or my current user agent:
 
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10\_5\_7; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Safari/528.17
 
Unless you're setting your User-Agent to something like, "ImABrowser (Some computer; Some proc; Some OS; Some language)" stop sounding the alarm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169229</id>
	<title>old news</title>
	<author>jsnipy</author>
	<datestamp>1243876140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same article with same title a while back.

You should also add "Quicktime Quietly Installs Firefox Extension" or "Adobe Quietly Installs Firefox Extension"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same article with same title a while back .
You should also add " Quicktime Quietly Installs Firefox Extension " or " Adobe Quietly Installs Firefox Extension "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same article with same title a while back.
You should also add "Quicktime Quietly Installs Firefox Extension" or "Adobe Quietly Installs Firefox Extension"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28178327</id>
	<title>Dupe</title>
	<author>Foxing\_Demon</author>
	<datestamp>1243885200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So am I the only one to remember this piece of news from February?
<br> <br>
<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/01/2143218/Microsoft-Update-Slips-In-a-Firefox-Extension" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/01/2143218/Microsoft-Update-Slips-In-a-Firefox-Extension</a> [slashdot.org]
<br> <br>
In other news, Microsoft fucking it's users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So am I the only one to remember this piece of news from February ?
http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/01/2143218/Microsoft-Update-Slips-In-a-Firefox-Extension [ slashdot.org ] In other news , Microsoft fucking it 's users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So am I the only one to remember this piece of news from February?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/01/2143218/Microsoft-Update-Slips-In-a-Firefox-Extension [slashdot.org]
 
In other news, Microsoft fucking it's users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169947</id>
	<title>Correcting Parent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET libraries are not built-in to the kernel.</p><p>In addition, they are not installed by default in Windows XP. A user must either download them from the Microsoft Download Center or choose them as an optional update in Windows Update. Windows Vista includes versions up to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 3.0 because some operating system components rely on the framework. The update in question is an automatic update in Windows Vista.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The .NET libraries are not built-in to the kernel.In addition , they are not installed by default in Windows XP .
A user must either download them from the Microsoft Download Center or choose them as an optional update in Windows Update .
Windows Vista includes versions up to .NET 3.0 because some operating system components rely on the framework .
The update in question is an automatic update in Windows Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The .NET libraries are not built-in to the kernel.In addition, they are not installed by default in Windows XP.
A user must either download them from the Microsoft Download Center or choose them as an optional update in Windows Update.
Windows Vista includes versions up to .NET 3.0 because some operating system components rely on the framework.
The update in question is an automatic update in Windows Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171289</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise!</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1243885380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? How?</p><p>Oh, lemme think... an unethical company could push an insecure framework into the plugin list of a competing browser so they can claim that the average Firefox installation is at least as insecure as the average IE... nah, who'd do that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
How ? Oh , lem me think... an unethical company could push an insecure framework into the plugin list of a competing browser so they can claim that the average Firefox installation is at least as insecure as the average IE... nah , who 'd do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
How?Oh, lemme think... an unethical company could push an insecure framework into the plugin list of a competing browser so they can claim that the average Firefox installation is at least as insecure as the average IE... nah, who'd do that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169515</id>
	<title>Slip Adobe/Apple and guarantee +5</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1243877340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another populist slashdotter AC plays the old game and wins.</p><p>What really makes Adobe Acrobat reader and Quicktime "suspicious"? Having MPEG1/3/4/PDF embedding functionality along with the TIFF coming with legitimately installed software plugin coming from legitimate companies is suspicious how?</p><p>You forgot Realplayer btw, it would give your little AC post +10 informative. Guess what, WE KNOW how to disable or rm plugins. It is the ultimate unethical method of MS we argue about. The nature of company and things they are capable of doing is another matter too. Adobe/Apple won't say "lets crash that stupid little browser", they won't deliberately do it but MS is certainly capable of doing such stuff. How do I know? Look to US Court documents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another populist slashdotter AC plays the old game and wins.What really makes Adobe Acrobat reader and Quicktime " suspicious " ?
Having MPEG1/3/4/PDF embedding functionality along with the TIFF coming with legitimately installed software plugin coming from legitimate companies is suspicious how ? You forgot Realplayer btw , it would give your little AC post + 10 informative .
Guess what , WE KNOW how to disable or rm plugins .
It is the ultimate unethical method of MS we argue about .
The nature of company and things they are capable of doing is another matter too .
Adobe/Apple wo n't say " lets crash that stupid little browser " , they wo n't deliberately do it but MS is certainly capable of doing such stuff .
How do I know ?
Look to US Court documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another populist slashdotter AC plays the old game and wins.What really makes Adobe Acrobat reader and Quicktime "suspicious"?
Having MPEG1/3/4/PDF embedding functionality along with the TIFF coming with legitimately installed software plugin coming from legitimate companies is suspicious how?You forgot Realplayer btw, it would give your little AC post +10 informative.
Guess what, WE KNOW how to disable or rm plugins.
It is the ultimate unethical method of MS we argue about.
The nature of company and things they are capable of doing is another matter too.
Adobe/Apple won't say "lets crash that stupid little browser", they won't deliberately do it but MS is certainly capable of doing such stuff.
How do I know?
Look to US Court documents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174747</id>
	<title>Old news...</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1243854960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey people. We hashed this one out back <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09\%2F02\%2F01\%2F2143218&amp;from=rss" title="slashdot.org">in February.</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>The blogosphere's just been celebrating Groundhog Day for the past 4 months, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey people .
We hashed this one out back in February .
[ slashdot.org ] The blogosphere 's just been celebrating Groundhog Day for the past 4 months , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey people.
We hashed this one out back in February.
[slashdot.org]The blogosphere's just been celebrating Groundhog Day for the past 4 months, I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169205</id>
	<title>V1.1 Has the Uninstall Button Active</title>
	<author>Astronomerguy</author>
	<datestamp>1243876020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm Running Firefox on the Windows 7 RC, and v 1.1 of the Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant has the "Uninstall" button enabled. Looks like this was an old-news thing that's been fixed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Running Firefox on the Windows 7 RC , and v 1.1 of the Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant has the " Uninstall " button enabled .
Looks like this was an old-news thing that 's been fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Running Firefox on the Windows 7 RC, and v 1.1 of the Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant has the "Uninstall" button enabled.
Looks like this was an old-news thing that's been fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168757</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievably Evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243874160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article does need some fact checking. The update is infact uninstallable hand has been for quite a while .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does need some fact checking .
The update is infact uninstallable hand has been for quite a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article does need some fact checking.
The update is infact uninstallable hand has been for quite a while .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168249</id>
	<title>Dupe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read about this on Slashdot a couple weeks ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read about this on Slashdot a couple weeks ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read about this on Slashdot a couple weeks ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169219</id>
	<title>Re: I applaud Microsoft for their work in Vista ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243876080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I applaud Microsoft for their work in Vista &amp; Windows 7 in separating userspace from kernelspace</i></p><p>Hahahaha<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. oh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. hahahaha<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. oh oh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. wait<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. mwaaahahahaha. The bestest clueless comment I have read in a very long time. Congrats, dude. Well done. Pishi eshe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I applaud Microsoft for their work in Vista &amp; Windows 7 in separating userspace from kernelspaceHahahaha .. oh .. hahahaha .. oh oh .. wait .. mwaaahahahaha. The bestest clueless comment I have read in a very long time .
Congrats , dude .
Well done .
Pishi eshe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I applaud Microsoft for their work in Vista &amp; Windows 7 in separating userspace from kernelspaceHahahaha .. oh .. hahahaha .. oh oh .. wait .. mwaaahahahaha. The bestest clueless comment I have read in a very long time.
Congrats, dude.
Well done.
Pishi eshe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174541</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243854120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But I have news for it, I can uninstall it and use Chrome, Opera, or Internet Explorer at a whim!</p></div></blockquote><p>It seems more likely that you'll just fire it up so you can whine about it on the Internet.</p><p>Bitching and moaning - it doesn't solve anything, but it sure is fun!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I have news for it , I can uninstall it and use Chrome , Opera , or Internet Explorer at a whim ! It seems more likely that you 'll just fire it up so you can whine about it on the Internet.Bitching and moaning - it does n't solve anything , but it sure is fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I have news for it, I can uninstall it and use Chrome, Opera, or Internet Explorer at a whim!It seems more likely that you'll just fire it up so you can whine about it on the Internet.Bitching and moaning - it doesn't solve anything, but it sure is fun!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169187</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, so it not only installs the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET security hole into Firefox, it then starts broadcasting it to every web site you visit?  "Hey, you can infect me!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so it not only installs the .NET security hole into Firefox , it then starts broadcasting it to every web site you visit ?
" Hey , you can infect me !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so it not only installs the .NET security hole into Firefox, it then starts broadcasting it to every web site you visit?
"Hey, you can infect me!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169963</id>
	<title>IE compatibility mode?</title>
	<author>carbona</author>
	<datestamp>1243879380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe now Firefox will now run in "IE" compatibility mode so I can "correct" all my CSS 2.0 compliant code to render correctly on Redmond's browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe now Firefox will now run in " IE " compatibility mode so I can " correct " all my CSS 2.0 compliant code to render correctly on Redmond 's browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe now Firefox will now run in "IE" compatibility mode so I can "correct" all my CSS 2.0 compliant code to render correctly on Redmond's browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168555</id>
	<title>Horray, Thanks M$</title>
	<author>Co0Ps</author>
	<datestamp>1243873260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that microsoft enabled<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net support into my firefox simply can't get my upset. I'm just happy that they actually took time to code an addon for their biggest competitor. As long as the addon does something useful, why should I care? Horray, Thanks M$.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that microsoft enabled .net support into my firefox simply ca n't get my upset .
I 'm just happy that they actually took time to code an addon for their biggest competitor .
As long as the addon does something useful , why should I care ?
Horray , Thanks M $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that microsoft enabled .net support into my firefox simply can't get my upset.
I'm just happy that they actually took time to code an addon for their biggest competitor.
As long as the addon does something useful, why should I care?
Horray, Thanks M$.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168273</id>
	<title>How to disable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243872000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tools &gt; Add-Ons &gt; Plugins &gt; Disable all Microsoft plugins.. and Adobe Acrobat's, QuickTimes &amp; anythiing else that looks suspicious</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tools &gt; Add-Ons &gt; Plugins &gt; Disable all Microsoft plugins.. and Adobe Acrobat 's , QuickTimes &amp; anythiing else that looks suspicious</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tools &gt; Add-Ons &gt; Plugins &gt; Disable all Microsoft plugins.. and Adobe Acrobat's, QuickTimes &amp; anythiing else that looks suspicious</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171459</id>
	<title>Summary of previous discussion</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1243886100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To save you all the trouble of reading the previous Slashdot discussion, I have summarized it below.</p><p>What does this Firefox extension do?</p><p>
1.) It installs a BHO (Browser Helper Object)
<br>
2.) The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net Framework Assistant also changes the User-Agent string of the Firefox browser, adding "(.NET CLR 3.5.30729)"
</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser\_Helper\_Object" title="wikipedia.org">A Browser Helper Object</a> [wikipedia.org] (BHO) is a DLL module designed as a plugin for Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser to provide added functionality.</p><p>"BHO can be used to install additional features or functions that are useful, <a href="http://netsecurity.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/f/faq\_bho.htm" title="about.com">it can also be exploited</a> [about.com] to install features or functions that are malicious. Some applications, such as the Google or Yahoo toolbars, are examples of good BHO's. But, there are also many examples of BHO's which are used to hijack your Web browser home page, spy on your Internet activities and other malicious actions."</p><p>The author on this site goes on to say: "If you are really concerned about bad BHO's and their affect on the overall security of your computer, you can just switch browsers. BHO's are unique to Microsoft's Internet Explorer and do not impact other Web browser applications such as Firefox."</p><p>Now that Microsoft has infected Firefox with this extension, his advice in the line above is obsolete!</p><p> <b>The following phrases were copied and pasted wholesale, directly from <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218" title="slashdot.org">the previous Slashdot discussion</a> [slashdot.org] without attribution (except in one case where I copied the entire text of one submitter's comment).</b> </p><p>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net Framework Assistant also changes the User-Agent string of the Firefox browser, adding "(.NET CLR 3.5.30729)", so infected sites can better detect which MS vulnerability to exploit.
The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework is not required for Firefox to run. Why would any sane person assume installing a totally unrelated framework would scribble all over Firefox?
<br>
It most definitely IS unexpected, because I was never notified anywhere that a MICROSOFT update would entail installing an addon to a completely NON-Microsoft product.</p><p>How are they allowed to get away with this? Isn't installing BHOs that are not asked for and cannot be uninstalled without hacking pretty much the definition of malware?</p><p>Microsoft modified *another company's products*. What's next? MS is going to start adding updates to VLC player or Utorrent or OpenOffice or WordPerfect?!?!? They shouldn't be messing with non-microsoft products.</p><p>Microsoft is doing this in an update without notifying its users (as far as has been reported) that this update will be modifying third party software with no easy way to prevent or uninstall the change.</p><p>The true question here is not how to uninstall it. The question everyone should be asking is: is it messing with other settings in firefox, reporting back to MS what other extensions I use, monitoring my web traffic, going to break my browser, new security holes?</p><p>Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user. I don't care if you say it's just an extension, you didn't ask me!</p><p>The precedent has already been established that the OS can be configured to require the local administrator to give explicit permission for each patch to be applied; the outrage here is that this time, that choice was not offered, and the affected software was neither part of the operating system nor even a Microsoft product.</p><p>For those of you who are assuming it's probably safe (and admittedly, you're probably right), there's another good reason to get rid of it. Microsoft changing your browser string to indicate that this piece of software is installed in your browser. The purpose of this, most likely, is to increase the installed base for this software, and use that as an argument</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To save you all the trouble of reading the previous Slashdot discussion , I have summarized it below.What does this Firefox extension do ?
1. ) It installs a BHO ( Browser Helper Object ) 2 .
) The .Net Framework Assistant also changes the User-Agent string of the Firefox browser , adding " ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729 ) " A Browser Helper Object [ wikipedia.org ] ( BHO ) is a DLL module designed as a plugin for Microsoft 's Internet Explorer web browser to provide added functionality .
" BHO can be used to install additional features or functions that are useful , it can also be exploited [ about.com ] to install features or functions that are malicious .
Some applications , such as the Google or Yahoo toolbars , are examples of good BHO 's .
But , there are also many examples of BHO 's which are used to hijack your Web browser home page , spy on your Internet activities and other malicious actions .
" The author on this site goes on to say : " If you are really concerned about bad BHO 's and their affect on the overall security of your computer , you can just switch browsers .
BHO 's are unique to Microsoft 's Internet Explorer and do not impact other Web browser applications such as Firefox .
" Now that Microsoft has infected Firefox with this extension , his advice in the line above is obsolete !
The following phrases were copied and pasted wholesale , directly from the previous Slashdot discussion [ slashdot.org ] without attribution ( except in one case where I copied the entire text of one submitter 's comment ) .
The .Net Framework Assistant also changes the User-Agent string of the Firefox browser , adding " ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729 ) " , so infected sites can better detect which MS vulnerability to exploit .
The .NET framework is not required for Firefox to run .
Why would any sane person assume installing a totally unrelated framework would scribble all over Firefox ?
It most definitely IS unexpected , because I was never notified anywhere that a MICROSOFT update would entail installing an addon to a completely NON-Microsoft product.How are they allowed to get away with this ?
Is n't installing BHOs that are not asked for and can not be uninstalled without hacking pretty much the definition of malware ? Microsoft modified * another company 's products * .
What 's next ?
MS is going to start adding updates to VLC player or Utorrent or OpenOffice or WordPerfect ? ! ? ! ?
They should n't be messing with non-microsoft products.Microsoft is doing this in an update without notifying its users ( as far as has been reported ) that this update will be modifying third party software with no easy way to prevent or uninstall the change.The true question here is not how to uninstall it .
The question everyone should be asking is : is it messing with other settings in firefox , reporting back to MS what other extensions I use , monitoring my web traffic , going to break my browser , new security holes ? Ok Microsoft , you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user .
I do n't care if you say it 's just an extension , you did n't ask me ! The precedent has already been established that the OS can be configured to require the local administrator to give explicit permission for each patch to be applied ; the outrage here is that this time , that choice was not offered , and the affected software was neither part of the operating system nor even a Microsoft product.For those of you who are assuming it 's probably safe ( and admittedly , you 're probably right ) , there 's another good reason to get rid of it .
Microsoft changing your browser string to indicate that this piece of software is installed in your browser .
The purpose of this , most likely , is to increase the installed base for this software , and use that as an argument</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To save you all the trouble of reading the previous Slashdot discussion, I have summarized it below.What does this Firefox extension do?
1.) It installs a BHO (Browser Helper Object)

2.
) The .Net Framework Assistant also changes the User-Agent string of the Firefox browser, adding "(.NET CLR 3.5.30729)"
 A Browser Helper Object [wikipedia.org] (BHO) is a DLL module designed as a plugin for Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser to provide added functionality.
"BHO can be used to install additional features or functions that are useful, it can also be exploited [about.com] to install features or functions that are malicious.
Some applications, such as the Google or Yahoo toolbars, are examples of good BHO's.
But, there are also many examples of BHO's which are used to hijack your Web browser home page, spy on your Internet activities and other malicious actions.
"The author on this site goes on to say: "If you are really concerned about bad BHO's and their affect on the overall security of your computer, you can just switch browsers.
BHO's are unique to Microsoft's Internet Explorer and do not impact other Web browser applications such as Firefox.
"Now that Microsoft has infected Firefox with this extension, his advice in the line above is obsolete!
The following phrases were copied and pasted wholesale, directly from the previous Slashdot discussion [slashdot.org] without attribution (except in one case where I copied the entire text of one submitter's comment).
The .Net Framework Assistant also changes the User-Agent string of the Firefox browser, adding "(.NET CLR 3.5.30729)", so infected sites can better detect which MS vulnerability to exploit.
The .NET framework is not required for Firefox to run.
Why would any sane person assume installing a totally unrelated framework would scribble all over Firefox?
It most definitely IS unexpected, because I was never notified anywhere that a MICROSOFT update would entail installing an addon to a completely NON-Microsoft product.How are they allowed to get away with this?
Isn't installing BHOs that are not asked for and cannot be uninstalled without hacking pretty much the definition of malware?Microsoft modified *another company's products*.
What's next?
MS is going to start adding updates to VLC player or Utorrent or OpenOffice or WordPerfect?!?!?
They shouldn't be messing with non-microsoft products.Microsoft is doing this in an update without notifying its users (as far as has been reported) that this update will be modifying third party software with no easy way to prevent or uninstall the change.The true question here is not how to uninstall it.
The question everyone should be asking is: is it messing with other settings in firefox, reporting back to MS what other extensions I use, monitoring my web traffic, going to break my browser, new security holes?Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user.
I don't care if you say it's just an extension, you didn't ask me!The precedent has already been established that the OS can be configured to require the local administrator to give explicit permission for each patch to be applied; the outrage here is that this time, that choice was not offered, and the affected software was neither part of the operating system nor even a Microsoft product.For those of you who are assuming it's probably safe (and admittedly, you're probably right), there's another good reason to get rid of it.
Microsoft changing your browser string to indicate that this piece of software is installed in your browser.
The purpose of this, most likely, is to increase the installed base for this software, and use that as an argument</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175819</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of previous discussion</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1243861140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>approximately 1/3rd of them were not explicitly installed by me, this is that half:</p></div><p>Good God man, you've added 1/6 more extensions just by talking about it here!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>approximately 1/3rd of them were not explicitly installed by me , this is that half : Good God man , you 've added 1/6 more extensions just by talking about it here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>approximately 1/3rd of them were not explicitly installed by me, this is that half:Good God man, you've added 1/6 more extensions just by talking about it here!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28176827</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>CBob</author>
	<datestamp>1243869240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the home machines picked up the bug. I wondered why FF was crashing so much &amp; not SeaMonkey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the home machines picked up the bug .
I wondered why FF was crashing so much &amp; not SeaMonkey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the home machines picked up the bug.
I wondered why FF was crashing so much &amp; not SeaMonkey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28177143</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox needs to fix this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to be an asshole about it, shit-for-brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to be an asshole about it , shit-for-brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to be an asshole about it, shit-for-brains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Taagehornet</author>
	<datestamp>1243872180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and we've already discussed it here at least once: <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and we 've already discussed it here at least once : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/02/01/2143218 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and we've already discussed it here at least once: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169191</id>
	<title>Re:Some Left Over Stupidity from the Last Millenni</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1243875960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny is, the real thing they stole the feature (Sun Java) does it very happily without having anything installed to "extensions" or "plugins". Java Webstart. Of course, it is ages ahead of the copier too.</p><p>Understand why Apple carefully picks the term "Photocopier" when talks about Redmond? They can't/don't make the exact copy, it is always backwards compared to the real thing just like photocopy.</p><p>There is something called "file types" on all operating systems down to Symbian on handhelds. You register filetype with helper app and expect browser to pick it from that database. It works on my Symbian S60 128MB RAM having handset<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny is , the real thing they stole the feature ( Sun Java ) does it very happily without having anything installed to " extensions " or " plugins " .
Java Webstart .
Of course , it is ages ahead of the copier too.Understand why Apple carefully picks the term " Photocopier " when talks about Redmond ?
They ca n't/do n't make the exact copy , it is always backwards compared to the real thing just like photocopy.There is something called " file types " on all operating systems down to Symbian on handhelds .
You register filetype with helper app and expect browser to pick it from that database .
It works on my Symbian S60 128MB RAM having handset : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny is, the real thing they stole the feature (Sun Java) does it very happily without having anything installed to "extensions" or "plugins".
Java Webstart.
Of course, it is ages ahead of the copier too.Understand why Apple carefully picks the term "Photocopier" when talks about Redmond?
They can't/don't make the exact copy, it is always backwards compared to the real thing just like photocopy.There is something called "file types" on all operating systems down to Symbian on handhelds.
You register filetype with helper app and expect browser to pick it from that database.
It works on my Symbian S60 128MB RAM having handset :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169383</id>
	<title>Marginalizing Opera again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243876740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There people go marginalizing Opera again and not giving us those fancy plugings that garbage up the system leaving us with our small compacts browser just as pristine as its always been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There people go marginalizing Opera again and not giving us those fancy plugings that garbage up the system leaving us with our small compacts browser just as pristine as its always been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There people go marginalizing Opera again and not giving us those fancy plugings that garbage up the system leaving us with our small compacts browser just as pristine as its always been.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175597</id>
	<title>M$ has been doing this for some time now actually</title>
	<author>justdrew</author>
	<datestamp>1243859520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just disable all the microsoft crap plugins, I don't need any of that functionality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just disable all the microsoft crap plugins , I do n't need any of that functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just disable all the microsoft crap plugins, I don't need any of that functionality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168369</id>
	<title>Remove it!</title>
	<author>Dystopian Rebel</author>
	<datestamp>1243872420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article08-600" title="annoyances.org">http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article08-600</a> [annoyances.org]</p><p>Note that Oracle (nee Sun) is also doing this with a Java extension.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article08-600 [ annoyances.org ] Note that Oracle ( nee Sun ) is also doing this with a Java extension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article08-600 [annoyances.org]Note that Oracle (nee Sun) is also doing this with a Java extension.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28192469</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only ones that are doing that</title>
	<author>Allador</author>
	<datestamp>1243971060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still, it would be nice if Firefox would protect its users from non-authorized extensions, warning of what was installed, and providing a easy way to uninstall/disable it.</p></div><p>There is no such a thing as a non-authorized extension.  The very concept doesnt even make sense.  If you have the rights to install a machine wide plugin to FF then either your machine is busted, or its authorized.</p><p>On your second item, FF does PRECISELY that.  The next time after this install that you started FF, it popped up a window that said this plugin was installed.  You either explicitly turned off this behavior or you didnt read it and just clicked ok.</p><p>Lastly, FF does provide a trivial way to disable it.  You click the disable button.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , it would be nice if Firefox would protect its users from non-authorized extensions , warning of what was installed , and providing a easy way to uninstall/disable it.There is no such a thing as a non-authorized extension .
The very concept doesnt even make sense .
If you have the rights to install a machine wide plugin to FF then either your machine is busted , or its authorized.On your second item , FF does PRECISELY that .
The next time after this install that you started FF , it popped up a window that said this plugin was installed .
You either explicitly turned off this behavior or you didnt read it and just clicked ok.Lastly , FF does provide a trivial way to disable it .
You click the disable button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, it would be nice if Firefox would protect its users from non-authorized extensions, warning of what was installed, and providing a easy way to uninstall/disable it.There is no such a thing as a non-authorized extension.
The very concept doesnt even make sense.
If you have the rights to install a machine wide plugin to FF then either your machine is busted, or its authorized.On your second item, FF does PRECISELY that.
The next time after this install that you started FF, it popped up a window that said this plugin was installed.
You either explicitly turned off this behavior or you didnt read it and just clicked ok.Lastly, FF does provide a trivial way to disable it.
You click the disable button.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169163</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1243875780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you disable the extension Firefox does not load anything other than its manifest.  It doesn't matter WHAT the extension does or how 'deeply the extension hooks into the OS', its not loaded.  Your lockups are unrelated to this extension if you have it disabled.  The could very well be related to any number of other things that change during patching, but this particular extension is not it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you disable the extension Firefox does not load anything other than its manifest .
It does n't matter WHAT the extension does or how 'deeply the extension hooks into the OS ' , its not loaded .
Your lockups are unrelated to this extension if you have it disabled .
The could very well be related to any number of other things that change during patching , but this particular extension is not it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you disable the extension Firefox does not load anything other than its manifest.
It doesn't matter WHAT the extension does or how 'deeply the extension hooks into the OS', its not loaded.
Your lockups are unrelated to this extension if you have it disabled.
The could very well be related to any number of other things that change during patching, but this particular extension is not it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173173</id>
	<title>Re:Some Left Over Stupidity from the Last Millenni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this nonsense? No part of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET runs in kernel mode.</p><p>Lots of other things do though, like windowing and graphics. Are you saying the browser shouldn't be allowed to display a window or draw any graphics because that calls into kernel mode?</p><p>This is such bullshit. In reality it's completely irrelevant whether something is running in kernel mode or not, or if it's running as an administrator or a standard user. A program needs no special rights to steal all your files and personal data, access the internet, make itself automatically start, or make you part of a botnet. All this can be done as a standard user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this nonsense ?
No part of .NET runs in kernel mode.Lots of other things do though , like windowing and graphics .
Are you saying the browser should n't be allowed to display a window or draw any graphics because that calls into kernel mode ? This is such bullshit .
In reality it 's completely irrelevant whether something is running in kernel mode or not , or if it 's running as an administrator or a standard user .
A program needs no special rights to steal all your files and personal data , access the internet , make itself automatically start , or make you part of a botnet .
All this can be done as a standard user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this nonsense?
No part of .NET runs in kernel mode.Lots of other things do though, like windowing and graphics.
Are you saying the browser shouldn't be allowed to display a window or draw any graphics because that calls into kernel mode?This is such bullshit.
In reality it's completely irrelevant whether something is running in kernel mode or not, or if it's running as an administrator or a standard user.
A program needs no special rights to steal all your files and personal data, access the internet, make itself automatically start, or make you part of a botnet.
All this can be done as a standard user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170193</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1243880640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except you didn't follow it through.</p><p>Let's say I deliberately install 15 extensions, then restart.</p><p>Firefox is now going to ask me 15 times if I want to keep this extension?  How annoying.  Even if it only asks once, if I want to keep "these 15 extensions", what if I miss the sneaky one that time because it's at the bottom?  Or I just assume that since I just installed 15 and restarted it, that they're all OK?</p><p>I'm already tired of Firefox's irritating startup procedure as it is.  When I start firefox, I expect to see a usable browser window as quickly as my computer can deliver it.  <em>Not</em> a dialog asking if I want to update these extensions.  <em>Especially not</em> a dialog that asks me if I want to update these extensions, then, after I click yes, will do the updates, then sit there doing nothing while demanding that I click "continue" before I get the browser window I requested 30 seconds ago!</p><p>Ugh!</p><p>When I open Firefox, I want a browser window I can use <em>immediately</em>.  All of Firefox's housekeeping crap should take a backseat to my selfish demands.  To blatantly personify, Firefox is getting upity and thinks what it wants to do is more important than what I want it to do. But I have news for it, I can uninstall it and use Chrome, Opera, or Internet Explorer at a whim!</p><p>If the things Firefox needs to ask me are in the form of demands rather than optional questions, it's doing it freaking wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you did n't follow it through.Let 's say I deliberately install 15 extensions , then restart.Firefox is now going to ask me 15 times if I want to keep this extension ?
How annoying .
Even if it only asks once , if I want to keep " these 15 extensions " , what if I miss the sneaky one that time because it 's at the bottom ?
Or I just assume that since I just installed 15 and restarted it , that they 're all OK ? I 'm already tired of Firefox 's irritating startup procedure as it is .
When I start firefox , I expect to see a usable browser window as quickly as my computer can deliver it .
Not a dialog asking if I want to update these extensions .
Especially not a dialog that asks me if I want to update these extensions , then , after I click yes , will do the updates , then sit there doing nothing while demanding that I click " continue " before I get the browser window I requested 30 seconds ago ! Ugh ! When I open Firefox , I want a browser window I can use immediately .
All of Firefox 's housekeeping crap should take a backseat to my selfish demands .
To blatantly personify , Firefox is getting upity and thinks what it wants to do is more important than what I want it to do .
But I have news for it , I can uninstall it and use Chrome , Opera , or Internet Explorer at a whim ! If the things Firefox needs to ask me are in the form of demands rather than optional questions , it 's doing it freaking wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you didn't follow it through.Let's say I deliberately install 15 extensions, then restart.Firefox is now going to ask me 15 times if I want to keep this extension?
How annoying.
Even if it only asks once, if I want to keep "these 15 extensions", what if I miss the sneaky one that time because it's at the bottom?
Or I just assume that since I just installed 15 and restarted it, that they're all OK?I'm already tired of Firefox's irritating startup procedure as it is.
When I start firefox, I expect to see a usable browser window as quickly as my computer can deliver it.
Not a dialog asking if I want to update these extensions.
Especially not a dialog that asks me if I want to update these extensions, then, after I click yes, will do the updates, then sit there doing nothing while demanding that I click "continue" before I get the browser window I requested 30 seconds ago!Ugh!When I open Firefox, I want a browser window I can use immediately.
All of Firefox's housekeeping crap should take a backseat to my selfish demands.
To blatantly personify, Firefox is getting upity and thinks what it wants to do is more important than what I want it to do.
But I have news for it, I can uninstall it and use Chrome, Opera, or Internet Explorer at a whim!If the things Firefox needs to ask me are in the form of demands rather than optional questions, it's doing it freaking wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175911</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of previous discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243861740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I'd like to know is why a 3rd party app can fully install a FF extension without any user intervention or notification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'd like to know is why a 3rd party app can fully install a FF extension without any user intervention or notification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'd like to know is why a 3rd party app can fully install a FF extension without any user intervention or notification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175889</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1243861620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox, on its own, should not be capable of locking up the entire machine.</p></div><p>Firefox, on its own, won't even run. It is not an operating system, or even a windowing environment - it requires both. It is never "alone".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox , on its own , should not be capable of locking up the entire machine.Firefox , on its own , wo n't even run .
It is not an operating system , or even a windowing environment - it requires both .
It is never " alone " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox, on its own, should not be capable of locking up the entire machine.Firefox, on its own, won't even run.
It is not an operating system, or even a windowing environment - it requires both.
It is never "alone".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170833</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox needs to fix this.</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1243883820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox needs to fix this.</p></div><p>It's like saying: the government needs to fix poverty.</p><p>It's easy to say "fix it all!" until you actually have the knowledge, experience and position to do so. Then you'd realize "darn, why hadn't I thought of this shit?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox needs to fix this.It 's like saying : the government needs to fix poverty.It 's easy to say " fix it all !
" until you actually have the knowledge , experience and position to do so .
Then you 'd realize " darn , why had n't I thought of this shit ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox needs to fix this.It's like saying: the government needs to fix poverty.It's easy to say "fix it all!
" until you actually have the knowledge, experience and position to do so.
Then you'd realize "darn, why hadn't I thought of this shit?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168563</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox needs to fix this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243873320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Letting the user install a addon makes the machine just as vulnerable. Machine owner != user. So really I get annoyed that the default mode is user addons, and not system wide addons. (yes we change firefox settings to just that)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Letting the user install a addon makes the machine just as vulnerable .
Machine owner ! = user .
So really I get annoyed that the default mode is user addons , and not system wide addons .
( yes we change firefox settings to just that )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Letting the user install a addon makes the machine just as vulnerable.
Machine owner != user.
So really I get annoyed that the default mode is user addons, and not system wide addons.
(yes we change firefox settings to just that)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1243875720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So lets speak about what has changed in 1 year? Firefox developers still didn't implement some sort of "If some extension installed behind my back (offline), ask user about it in next launch" functionality. Of course, it is a community/open source project. I would suggest and ask for votes if I was really a Firefox user but I am not.</p><p>It is Microsoft and couple of ignorant developers currently installing local extensions, no malware or serious privacy issue yet. It is just inconvinience but things may change. Firefox is a very major player in browser business now and extensions can be very powerful. Users still run as "super user", even if they weren't, there is no precious data besides users home dir and browsing habits anyway. Understand what I am really afraid of?</p><p>It is simply "check whatever was there in last quit and what was added when I got first launched" functionality. Nothing fancy, nothing fascistic like app store. Oh if they look at source and haxor the functionality? That is the time you do a nice submission to ClamAV/Kaspersky/Symantec/MCafee and they will care for the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So lets speak about what has changed in 1 year ?
Firefox developers still did n't implement some sort of " If some extension installed behind my back ( offline ) , ask user about it in next launch " functionality .
Of course , it is a community/open source project .
I would suggest and ask for votes if I was really a Firefox user but I am not.It is Microsoft and couple of ignorant developers currently installing local extensions , no malware or serious privacy issue yet .
It is just inconvinience but things may change .
Firefox is a very major player in browser business now and extensions can be very powerful .
Users still run as " super user " , even if they were n't , there is no precious data besides users home dir and browsing habits anyway .
Understand what I am really afraid of ? It is simply " check whatever was there in last quit and what was added when I got first launched " functionality .
Nothing fancy , nothing fascistic like app store .
Oh if they look at source and haxor the functionality ?
That is the time you do a nice submission to ClamAV/Kaspersky/Symantec/MCafee and they will care for the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So lets speak about what has changed in 1 year?
Firefox developers still didn't implement some sort of "If some extension installed behind my back (offline), ask user about it in next launch" functionality.
Of course, it is a community/open source project.
I would suggest and ask for votes if I was really a Firefox user but I am not.It is Microsoft and couple of ignorant developers currently installing local extensions, no malware or serious privacy issue yet.
It is just inconvinience but things may change.
Firefox is a very major player in browser business now and extensions can be very powerful.
Users still run as "super user", even if they weren't, there is no precious data besides users home dir and browsing habits anyway.
Understand what I am really afraid of?It is simply "check whatever was there in last quit and what was added when I got first launched" functionality.
Nothing fancy, nothing fascistic like app store.
Oh if they look at source and haxor the functionality?
That is the time you do a nice submission to ClamAV/Kaspersky/Symantec/MCafee and they will care for the rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174821</id>
	<title>Re:old news</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1243855260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's like telling<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. to put down the Hustler and masturbate to Vogue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like telling / .
to put down the Hustler and masturbate to Vogue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like telling /.
to put down the Hustler and masturbate to Vogue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169877</id>
	<title>Re:Bug in Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kay, then how do you expect IT guys to roll out updates to 1000 machines running Fx on their network?</p><p>Oops, there goes your open source browser at work. Have fun with interblag exploder...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kay , then how do you expect IT guys to roll out updates to 1000 machines running Fx on their network ? Oops , there goes your open source browser at work .
Have fun with interblag exploder.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kay, then how do you expect IT guys to roll out updates to 1000 machines running Fx on their network?Oops, there goes your open source browser at work.
Have fun with interblag exploder...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</id>
	<title>Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243872600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed this on a work machine and read about it last week.  Instead of trying to manually remove the extension (the Uninstall button is disabled for this one and only extension) I simply disabled it.  Starting that same day, the machine (2.3 Ghz dual core Vista with 4 GB RAM) has begun locking up hard when using Firefox.  This doesn't happen with IE or any other software.  It locked up 5 times on me with Firefox within 1 hour, and has not locked up at all since then, as I have not used Firefox.  It is abundantly clear the problem is related to Firefox, and the only thing I did with Firefox was disable the extension and restart.</p><p>Has anyone else experienced anything like this after disabling the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET extension?  I'm curious how deeply this extension hooks into the OS and if it is capable of freezing up the entire OS.  Firefox, on its own, should not be capable of locking up the entire machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed this on a work machine and read about it last week .
Instead of trying to manually remove the extension ( the Uninstall button is disabled for this one and only extension ) I simply disabled it .
Starting that same day , the machine ( 2.3 Ghz dual core Vista with 4 GB RAM ) has begun locking up hard when using Firefox .
This does n't happen with IE or any other software .
It locked up 5 times on me with Firefox within 1 hour , and has not locked up at all since then , as I have not used Firefox .
It is abundantly clear the problem is related to Firefox , and the only thing I did with Firefox was disable the extension and restart.Has anyone else experienced anything like this after disabling the .NET extension ?
I 'm curious how deeply this extension hooks into the OS and if it is capable of freezing up the entire OS .
Firefox , on its own , should not be capable of locking up the entire machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed this on a work machine and read about it last week.
Instead of trying to manually remove the extension (the Uninstall button is disabled for this one and only extension) I simply disabled it.
Starting that same day, the machine (2.3 Ghz dual core Vista with 4 GB RAM) has begun locking up hard when using Firefox.
This doesn't happen with IE or any other software.
It locked up 5 times on me with Firefox within 1 hour, and has not locked up at all since then, as I have not used Firefox.
It is abundantly clear the problem is related to Firefox, and the only thing I did with Firefox was disable the extension and restart.Has anyone else experienced anything like this after disabling the .NET extension?
I'm curious how deeply this extension hooks into the OS and if it is capable of freezing up the entire OS.
Firefox, on its own, should not be capable of locking up the entire machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168893</id>
	<title>Looks like it's possible to remove somewhat easily</title>
	<author>deepgrey</author>
	<datestamp>1243874760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>however, who knows what else <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&amp;FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [microsoft.com] does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>however , who knows what else this [ microsoft.com ] does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however, who knows what else this [microsoft.com] does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174243</id>
	<title>Easy short term way to fix..</title>
	<author>HJED</author>
	<datestamp>1243852800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just install Firefox 3b4, the add on is not compatible<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-), although Firefox 3 is really slow<br>
And of-course this is a short-term solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just install Firefox 3b4 , the add on is not compatible : - ) , although Firefox 3 is really slow And of-course this is a short-term solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just install Firefox 3b4, the add on is not compatible :-), although Firefox 3 is really slow
And of-course this is a short-term solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168639</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>entirely\_fluffy</author>
	<datestamp>1243873620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disabled it and had no problems like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disabled it and had no problems like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disabled it and had no problems like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171721</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Firefox strategy</title>
	<author>TheDarkener</author>
	<datestamp>1243886940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Send Mozilla Firefox team a cake<br>2) Quietly install<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET add-on through Windows Updates<br>3) *classified*<br>4) Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Send Mozilla Firefox team a cake2 ) Quietly install .NET add-on through Windows Updates3 ) * classified * 4 ) Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Send Mozilla Firefox team a cake2) Quietly install .NET add-on through Windows Updates3) *classified*4) Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168825</id>
	<title>Shameless plug...</title>
	<author>cAllison</author>
	<datestamp>1243874580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll take this opportunity to just say...

<a href="http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron.php" title="srware.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron.php</a> [srware.net]

It's like Chome, without the Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take this opportunity to just say.. . http : //www.srware.net/en/software \ _srware \ _iron.php [ srware.net ] It 's like Chome , without the Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take this opportunity to just say...

http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron.php [srware.net]

It's like Chome, without the Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168579</id>
	<title>Surprise sex is a nice way of saying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243873380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rape.</p><p>--Jimmy Carr (iirc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rape.--Jimmy Carr ( iirc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rape.--Jimmy Carr (iirc)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170575</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox needs to fix this.</title>
	<author>Bilbo</author>
	<datestamp>1243882500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; <i>Finally, there is a very simple solution. Don't install software that does things you don't want it to do.</i>
<p>
The problem is that people <i>aren't</i> "installing" software, at least not in their minds.  They are following what security experts have been screaming about for years -- namely keeping up to date on their MS security updates.  They don't know that this is a feature upgrade.  It's just something that tags along with all the other security updates they are dutifully downloading and applying.
</p><p>
What are you going to do?  Tell grandma to install only those MS updates which she <b>understands</b>?  Yea, like that's going to help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Finally , there is a very simple solution .
Do n't install software that does things you do n't want it to do .
The problem is that people are n't " installing " software , at least not in their minds .
They are following what security experts have been screaming about for years -- namely keeping up to date on their MS security updates .
They do n't know that this is a feature upgrade .
It 's just something that tags along with all the other security updates they are dutifully downloading and applying .
What are you going to do ?
Tell grandma to install only those MS updates which she understands ?
Yea , like that 's going to help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Finally, there is a very simple solution.
Don't install software that does things you don't want it to do.
The problem is that people aren't "installing" software, at least not in their minds.
They are following what security experts have been screaming about for years -- namely keeping up to date on their MS security updates.
They don't know that this is a feature upgrade.
It's just something that tags along with all the other security updates they are dutifully downloading and applying.
What are you going to do?
Tell grandma to install only those MS updates which she understands?
Yea, like that's going to help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168225</id>
	<title>Surprise!</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1243871880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you think <i>you</i> know better than MICROSOFT what should be on your machine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you think you know better than MICROSOFT what should be on your machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you think you know better than MICROSOFT what should be on your machine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171123</id>
	<title>I bought a Mac</title>
	<author>pcairic</author>
	<datestamp>1243884900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After 25 years of working for/with/against Microsoft Windows. I just had enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After 25 years of working for/with/against Microsoft Windows .
I just had enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After 25 years of working for/with/against Microsoft Windows.
I just had enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168629</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243873560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course it's not, because by disabling it you prevent it from running. Maybe you should fix your machine;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET hooks "into the OS" just as much as the Java standard library does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it 's not , because by disabling it you prevent it from running .
Maybe you should fix your machine ; .NET hooks " into the OS " just as much as the Java standard library does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it's not, because by disabling it you prevent it from running.
Maybe you should fix your machine; .NET hooks "into the OS" just as much as the Java standard library does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168261</id>
	<title>Uhm... but this is old news, isn't it?</title>
	<author>w4rl5ck</author>
	<datestamp>1243872000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net-Update has "installed" this Add-On secretly for a few months now, as far as I know. It just got into the "normal" Windows auto-update stream, thus annoying more and more people? Or am I somehow mistaken?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The .net-Update has " installed " this Add-On secretly for a few months now , as far as I know .
It just got into the " normal " Windows auto-update stream , thus annoying more and more people ?
Or am I somehow mistaken ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The .net-Update has "installed" this Add-On secretly for a few months now, as far as I know.
It just got into the "normal" Windows auto-update stream, thus annoying more and more people?
Or am I somehow mistaken?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169953</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The sad thing is that I think probably everyone missed this because this is not new behavior for Microsoft.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, the sad thing is that this started in February, 2009, this guy has just learned of  it... and Slashdot is treating it as current news.<br> <br>Was installing it without notification a poor choice? Sure, but that problem has long since been fixed, and wasn't that big a deal to work around in the first place: Just disable the extension in Firefox.<br> <br>But, any chance to drive up Slashdot ad revenue, I suppose... and there's nothing quite like the chance for some good old-fashioned Microsoft bashing to bring out the Linux zealots and wannabes in droves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad thing is that I think probably everyone missed this because this is not new behavior for Microsoft.No , the sad thing is that this started in February , 2009 , this guy has just learned of it... and Slashdot is treating it as current news .
Was installing it without notification a poor choice ?
Sure , but that problem has long since been fixed , and was n't that big a deal to work around in the first place : Just disable the extension in Firefox .
But , any chance to drive up Slashdot ad revenue , I suppose... and there 's nothing quite like the chance for some good old-fashioned Microsoft bashing to bring out the Linux zealots and wannabes in droves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad thing is that I think probably everyone missed this because this is not new behavior for Microsoft.No, the sad thing is that this started in February, 2009, this guy has just learned of  it... and Slashdot is treating it as current news.
Was installing it without notification a poor choice?
Sure, but that problem has long since been fixed, and wasn't that big a deal to work around in the first place: Just disable the extension in Firefox.
But, any chance to drive up Slashdot ad revenue, I suppose... and there's nothing quite like the chance for some good old-fashioned Microsoft bashing to bring out the Linux zealots and wannabes in droves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28179393</id>
	<title>Re:Bug in Firefox</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1243939620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, I think there is a difference between adding something without permission, and really going out of your way to defeat a warning notification  With only a minor change, Firefox can easily detect if a plug-in exists and hasn't been run before.</p><p>Adding a plug-in for a 3rd party product is annoying but fairly common practice, and only your typical Slashdotter will hear about it.  Changing the configuration files of a 3rd party product would be a PR nightmare for Microsoft... or worse.  Even clearing the cache would raise hell, no matter what the reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , I think there is a difference between adding something without permission , and really going out of your way to defeat a warning notification With only a minor change , Firefox can easily detect if a plug-in exists and has n't been run before.Adding a plug-in for a 3rd party product is annoying but fairly common practice , and only your typical Slashdotter will hear about it .
Changing the configuration files of a 3rd party product would be a PR nightmare for Microsoft... or worse .
Even clearing the cache would raise hell , no matter what the reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, I think there is a difference between adding something without permission, and really going out of your way to defeat a warning notification  With only a minor change, Firefox can easily detect if a plug-in exists and hasn't been run before.Adding a plug-in for a 3rd party product is annoying but fairly common practice, and only your typical Slashdotter will hear about it.
Changing the configuration files of a 3rd party product would be a PR nightmare for Microsoft... or worse.
Even clearing the cache would raise hell, no matter what the reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168915</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243874880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new twist is that the article's author <em>just realized</em> that the extension can't be easily uninstalled:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm here to report a small side effect from installing this service pack that I was not aware of until just a few days ago: Apparently, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET update automatically installs its own Firefox add-on that is difficult -- if not dangerous -- to remove, once installed.</p><p>Annoyances.org, which lists various aspects of Windows that are, well, annoying, says "this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC." I'm not sure I'd put things in quite such dire terms, but I'm fairly confident that a decent number of Firefox for Windows users are rabidly anti-Internet Explorer, and would take umbrage at the very notion of Redmond monkeying with the browser in any way.</p><p>Big deal, you say? I can just uninstall the add-on via Firefox's handy Add-ons interface, right? <strong>Not so fast. The trouble is, Microsoft has disabled the "uninstall" button on the extension. What's more, Microsoft tells us that the only way to get rid of this thing is to modify the Windows registry, an exercise that -- if done imprecisely -- can cause Windows systems to fail to boot up.</strong></p> </div><p>The sad thing is that I think probably everyone missed this because this is <em>not</em> new behavior for Microsoft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new twist is that the article 's author just realized that the extension ca n't be easily uninstalled : I 'm here to report a small side effect from installing this service pack that I was not aware of until just a few days ago : Apparently , the .NET update automatically installs its own Firefox add-on that is difficult -- if not dangerous -- to remove , once installed.Annoyances.org , which lists various aspects of Windows that are , well , annoying , says " this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer : the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC .
" I 'm not sure I 'd put things in quite such dire terms , but I 'm fairly confident that a decent number of Firefox for Windows users are rabidly anti-Internet Explorer , and would take umbrage at the very notion of Redmond monkeying with the browser in any way.Big deal , you say ?
I can just uninstall the add-on via Firefox 's handy Add-ons interface , right ?
Not so fast .
The trouble is , Microsoft has disabled the " uninstall " button on the extension .
What 's more , Microsoft tells us that the only way to get rid of this thing is to modify the Windows registry , an exercise that -- if done imprecisely -- can cause Windows systems to fail to boot up .
The sad thing is that I think probably everyone missed this because this is not new behavior for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new twist is that the article's author just realized that the extension can't be easily uninstalled:I'm here to report a small side effect from installing this service pack that I was not aware of until just a few days ago: Apparently, the .NET update automatically installs its own Firefox add-on that is difficult -- if not dangerous -- to remove, once installed.Annoyances.org, which lists various aspects of Windows that are, well, annoying, says "this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC.
" I'm not sure I'd put things in quite such dire terms, but I'm fairly confident that a decent number of Firefox for Windows users are rabidly anti-Internet Explorer, and would take umbrage at the very notion of Redmond monkeying with the browser in any way.Big deal, you say?
I can just uninstall the add-on via Firefox's handy Add-ons interface, right?
Not so fast.
The trouble is, Microsoft has disabled the "uninstall" button on the extension.
What's more, Microsoft tells us that the only way to get rid of this thing is to modify the Windows registry, an exercise that -- if done imprecisely -- can cause Windows systems to fail to boot up.
The sad thing is that I think probably everyone missed this because this is not new behavior for Microsoft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053</id>
	<title>Bug in Firefox</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1243875360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This allows an extension to be installed:<br>
&nbsp; - Without notification<br>
&nbsp; - Without the option to "uninstall"<br>
&nbsp; - (apparently, from the article) With the ability to install more things to your PC (which I thought Extensions were forbidden to do, and only Plugins [eg: Flash] could do)</p><p>This is clearly a bug in Firefox, and a fix should be released immediately.<br>I'd think that firstly Firefox should default to considering the extension "unauthorized" and put up a big scary warning like "Unauthorized extension detected: An external program has installed an extension in a manner which bypasses Firefox's normal security features. It is recommended that you click "uninstall" below, unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing"<br>But there's no framework in Firefox (that I am aware of) for such an authorized/unauthorized check to be established. (It would mean defaulting everything except this Microsoft extension to "trusted")</p><p>Sounds like a move by Microsoft to say "see! Open source isn't safe! Look what we could do!" once Firefox releases a fix that says "Warning: Unauthorized extension signed by 'Microsoft Corp' detected!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This allows an extension to be installed :   - Without notification   - Without the option to " uninstall "   - ( apparently , from the article ) With the ability to install more things to your PC ( which I thought Extensions were forbidden to do , and only Plugins [ eg : Flash ] could do ) This is clearly a bug in Firefox , and a fix should be released immediately.I 'd think that firstly Firefox should default to considering the extension " unauthorized " and put up a big scary warning like " Unauthorized extension detected : An external program has installed an extension in a manner which bypasses Firefox 's normal security features .
It is recommended that you click " uninstall " below , unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing " But there 's no framework in Firefox ( that I am aware of ) for such an authorized/unauthorized check to be established .
( It would mean defaulting everything except this Microsoft extension to " trusted " ) Sounds like a move by Microsoft to say " see !
Open source is n't safe !
Look what we could do !
" once Firefox releases a fix that says " Warning : Unauthorized extension signed by 'Microsoft Corp ' detected !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This allows an extension to be installed:
  - Without notification
  - Without the option to "uninstall"
  - (apparently, from the article) With the ability to install more things to your PC (which I thought Extensions were forbidden to do, and only Plugins [eg: Flash] could do)This is clearly a bug in Firefox, and a fix should be released immediately.I'd think that firstly Firefox should default to considering the extension "unauthorized" and put up a big scary warning like "Unauthorized extension detected: An external program has installed an extension in a manner which bypasses Firefox's normal security features.
It is recommended that you click "uninstall" below, unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing"But there's no framework in Firefox (that I am aware of) for such an authorized/unauthorized check to be established.
(It would mean defaulting everything except this Microsoft extension to "trusted")Sounds like a move by Microsoft to say "see!
Open source isn't safe!
Look what we could do!
" once Firefox releases a fix that says "Warning: Unauthorized extension signed by 'Microsoft Corp' detected!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28180801</id>
	<title>Again....?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1243951320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't they learned, they should be brought to court already over this. I do not want any add-ons for firefox when I do a M$ update. I choose my firefox addons, not M$, and who is to say what that new addon really does, and once it's been installed, maybe there is something in the addon, that will never leave the registry or the PC, maybe it might be microsoft, trying their hand at a firefox logger<br>trying to log all firefox activity to see why FF is now the prefered client, hell......now I guess I have no choice but to get Lynx!</p><p>Thanks M$, I would not have made my next move without this one....Lynx...pure security!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't they learned , they should be brought to court already over this .
I do not want any add-ons for firefox when I do a M $ update .
I choose my firefox addons , not M $ , and who is to say what that new addon really does , and once it 's been installed , maybe there is something in the addon , that will never leave the registry or the PC , maybe it might be microsoft , trying their hand at a firefox loggertrying to log all firefox activity to see why FF is now the prefered client , hell......now I guess I have no choice but to get Lynx ! Thanks M $ , I would not have made my next move without this one....Lynx...pure security !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't they learned, they should be brought to court already over this.
I do not want any add-ons for firefox when I do a M$ update.
I choose my firefox addons, not M$, and who is to say what that new addon really does, and once it's been installed, maybe there is something in the addon, that will never leave the registry or the PC, maybe it might be microsoft, trying their hand at a firefox loggertrying to log all firefox activity to see why FF is now the prefered client, hell......now I guess I have no choice but to get Lynx!Thanks M$, I would not have made my next move without this one....Lynx...pure security!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169149</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the slashdot editors starting to get senile?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the slashdot editors starting to get senile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the slashdot editors starting to get senile?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28172369</id>
	<title>Re:fairly sure that</title>
	<author>sanctimonius hypocrt</author>
	<datestamp>1243889220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Firefox developers still didn't implement some sort of "If some extension installed behind my back (offline), ask user about it in next launch" functionality.</i>

</p><p>It's pre-empted by the "If I'm using Windows assume I expect this sort of nonsense" functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox developers still did n't implement some sort of " If some extension installed behind my back ( offline ) , ask user about it in next launch " functionality .
It 's pre-empted by the " If I 'm using Windows assume I expect this sort of nonsense " functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Firefox developers still didn't implement some sort of "If some extension installed behind my back (offline), ask user about it in next launch" functionality.
It's pre-empted by the "If I'm using Windows assume I expect this sort of nonsense" functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174767</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievably Evil</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1243855020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is unbelievably evil</p></div></blockquote><p>Only if you consider "unbelievably evil" to be synonymous with "mildly inconvenient."</p><p>It helps to get the information straight, as well.  Believing the article is the first step towards stupidity, since almost the entire thing is factually incorrect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is unbelievably evilOnly if you consider " unbelievably evil " to be synonymous with " mildly inconvenient .
" It helps to get the information straight , as well .
Believing the article is the first step towards stupidity , since almost the entire thing is factually incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is unbelievably evilOnly if you consider "unbelievably evil" to be synonymous with "mildly inconvenient.
"It helps to get the information straight, as well.
Believing the article is the first step towards stupidity, since almost the entire thing is factually incorrect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169311</id>
	<title>check your plugins too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243876440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i had "windows presentation foundation" installed too, with no details at all what it did or any obvious way of deleting it<br>eventually i navigated to<br>C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\Windows Presentation Foundation</p><p>and deleted everything in it and it was all gone</p><p>Mozilla needs to put a stop to this being possible and at least advise the user on the info screen what DLL is responsible and a way to forcibly remove it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i had " windows presentation foundation " installed too , with no details at all what it did or any obvious way of deleting iteventually i navigated toC : \ WINDOWS \ Microsoft.NET \ Framework \ v3.5 \ Windows Presentation Foundationand deleted everything in it and it was all goneMozilla needs to put a stop to this being possible and at least advise the user on the info screen what DLL is responsible and a way to forcibly remove it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i had "windows presentation foundation" installed too, with no details at all what it did or any obvious way of deleting iteventually i navigated toC:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\Windows Presentation Foundationand deleted everything in it and it was all goneMozilla needs to put a stop to this being possible and at least advise the user on the info screen what DLL is responsible and a way to forcibly remove it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170023</id>
	<title>Good news for Beta testers</title>
	<author>Jorkapp</author>
	<datestamp>1243879740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems MS didn't factor in the beta releases of Firefox. To get rid of it on 3.5B4, uninstall works from the add-ons window.</p><p>Funny how broken compatibility makes it work like it's supposed to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems MS did n't factor in the beta releases of Firefox .
To get rid of it on 3.5B4 , uninstall works from the add-ons window.Funny how broken compatibility makes it work like it 's supposed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems MS didn't factor in the beta releases of Firefox.
To get rid of it on 3.5B4, uninstall works from the add-ons window.Funny how broken compatibility makes it work like it's supposed to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171709</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal problem</title>
	<author>EkriirkE</author>
	<datestamp>1243886940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>don't forget to remove/clear the "dotnet" UserAgent string MS added in about:config</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't forget to remove/clear the " dotnet " UserAgent string MS added in about : config</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't forget to remove/clear the "dotnet" UserAgent string MS added in about:config</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28172611</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying, but...</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1243846860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is preparing for the day a ruling comes out from the EU that will end IE's position as the default browser. It is preparing itself for a world where IE no longer dominates, by developing techniques such as it did with the Firefox extension to continue leveraging the browser as it always did to extend its monopoly on the desktop onto the web. This whole fiasco was a trial balloon, to see how much it can get away with. Microsoft is able to easily rationalize why the Firefox extension was pushed out and uninstallable. The next attack on browsers will be less of a shock to us, and have less justification. Finally they will establish this as common practise, doing things like automatically adding Silverlight plug-ins to all browsers, and people won't even blink an eye. We will be exhausted after having discussed all the dupes on Slashdot about this at each attempt. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is preparing for the day a ruling comes out from the EU that will end IE 's position as the default browser .
It is preparing itself for a world where IE no longer dominates , by developing techniques such as it did with the Firefox extension to continue leveraging the browser as it always did to extend its monopoly on the desktop onto the web .
This whole fiasco was a trial balloon , to see how much it can get away with .
Microsoft is able to easily rationalize why the Firefox extension was pushed out and uninstallable .
The next attack on browsers will be less of a shock to us , and have less justification .
Finally they will establish this as common practise , doing things like automatically adding Silverlight plug-ins to all browsers , and people wo n't even blink an eye .
We will be exhausted after having discussed all the dupes on Slashdot about this at each attempt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is preparing for the day a ruling comes out from the EU that will end IE's position as the default browser.
It is preparing itself for a world where IE no longer dominates, by developing techniques such as it did with the Firefox extension to continue leveraging the browser as it always did to extend its monopoly on the desktop onto the web.
This whole fiasco was a trial balloon, to see how much it can get away with.
Microsoft is able to easily rationalize why the Firefox extension was pushed out and uninstallable.
The next attack on browsers will be less of a shock to us, and have less justification.
Finally they will establish this as common practise, doing things like automatically adding Silverlight plug-ins to all browsers, and people won't even blink an eye.
We will be exhausted after having discussed all the dupes on Slashdot about this at each attempt. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168507</id>
	<title>It's a string in the user-agent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243873020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework versions to the web server.</p></div><p>I do not like the sound of that nor does Annoyances.org as the article notes. I don't like the idea of sending anything about software on my computer to a web server without me knowing about it.</p></div><p>But do you know what your browser is already sending? Mine is sending this:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>"Windows NT 5.1" is Windows XP, and "Gecko" is the HTML/CSS engine used by Firefox, Iceweasel, SeaMonkey, Fennec, etc. Sites can query the versions of various addons that handle an <tt>object</tt> type, such as Java SE and Flash Player, by embedding such an <tt>object</tt>. What's so different between querying the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework version through this add-on and doing so through the Silverlight addon?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed .NET framework versions to the web server.I do not like the sound of that nor does Annoyances.org as the article notes .
I do n't like the idea of sending anything about software on my computer to a web server without me knowing about it.But do you know what your browser is already sending ?
Mine is sending this : User-agent : Mozilla/5.0 ( Windows ; U ; Windows NT 5.1 ; en-US ; rv : 1.9.0.10 ) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729 ) " Windows NT 5.1 " is Windows XP , and " Gecko " is the HTML/CSS engine used by Firefox , Iceweasel , SeaMonkey , Fennec , etc .
Sites can query the versions of various addons that handle an object type , such as Java SE and Flash Player , by embedding such an object .
What 's so different between querying the .NET Framework version through this add-on and doing so through the Silverlight addon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed .NET framework versions to the web server.I do not like the sound of that nor does Annoyances.org as the article notes.
I don't like the idea of sending anything about software on my computer to a web server without me knowing about it.But do you know what your browser is already sending?
Mine is sending this: User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) "Windows NT 5.1" is Windows XP, and "Gecko" is the HTML/CSS engine used by Firefox, Iceweasel, SeaMonkey, Fennec, etc.
Sites can query the versions of various addons that handle an object type, such as Java SE and Flash Player, by embedding such an object.
What's so different between querying the .NET Framework version through this add-on and doing so through the Silverlight addon?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28192469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28176827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28192303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28172611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28177143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28179393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28172961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28179353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28179303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28172369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1438219_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28192303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169273
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171459
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28173461
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175819
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175165
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169481
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170193
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174541
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175931
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28172369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28172961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168907
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28179393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28175889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28176827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28179303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28177143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28171099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28172611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28192469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28179353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28170877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1438219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28174767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28169915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1438219.28168757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
