<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_24_216231</id>
	<title>AV-Test Deems Windows Security Essentials "Very Good"</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245837420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/" rel="nofollow">CWmike</a> writes <i>"Microsoft's new free security software, Windows Security Essentials, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134753">passed a preliminary antivirus exam with flying colors</a>, said independent and trusted firm <a href="http://www.av-test.org/">AV-Test</a>, which tested Essentials, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134682">launched yesterday in beta</a>, on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7. It put it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses, bot Trojans and worms, said Andreas Marx, one of the firm's managers. The malware was culled from the most recent WildList, a list of threats actually actively attacking computers. 'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,' Marx said in an e-mail. 'That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet.' It also tested well on false positives."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft 's new free security software , Windows Security Essentials , passed a preliminary antivirus exam with flying colors , said independent and trusted firm AV-Test , which tested Essentials , launched yesterday in beta , on Windows XP , Vista and Windows 7 .
It put it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses , bot Trojans and worms , said Andreas Marx , one of the firm 's managers .
The malware was culled from the most recent WildList , a list of threats actually actively attacking computers .
'All files were properly detected and treated by the product, ' Marx said in an e-mail .
'That 's good , as several other [ antivirus ] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet .
' It also tested well on false positives .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft's new free security software, Windows Security Essentials, passed a preliminary antivirus exam with flying colors, said independent and trusted firm AV-Test, which tested Essentials, launched yesterday in beta, on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7.
It put it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses, bot Trojans and worms, said Andreas Marx, one of the firm's managers.
The malware was culled from the most recent WildList, a list of threats actually actively attacking computers.
'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,' Marx said in an e-mail.
'That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet.
' It also tested well on false positives.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460693</id>
	<title>Not surprised if it's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245847200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has had forever to make one, so I wouldn't be surprised if the release is decent.<br>Plus, they have a vested interest in removing crap from their OS for the sake of better public perception.<br>It only makes sense to do something which is in line with their crusade for improved security on Windows in recent years, which, judging from where they've come from, they've achieved alot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has had forever to make one , so I would n't be surprised if the release is decent.Plus , they have a vested interest in removing crap from their OS for the sake of better public perception.It only makes sense to do something which is in line with their crusade for improved security on Windows in recent years , which , judging from where they 've come from , they 've achieved alot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has had forever to make one, so I wouldn't be surprised if the release is decent.Plus, they have a vested interest in removing crap from their OS for the sake of better public perception.It only makes sense to do something which is in line with their crusade for improved security on Windows in recent years, which, judging from where they've come from, they've achieved alot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459781</id>
	<title>Great if you're living in one of 5 countries...</title>
	<author>jpedlow</author>
	<datestamp>1245842520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I decided i'd check it out for my XP box....

"Not available in your country or region
You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.

This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).
"


So...not Canada?
*sigh*

Well, time for Nod32 or kaspersky I guess...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I decided i 'd check it out for my XP box... . " Not available in your country or region You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable .
This beta is available only to customers in the United States , Israel ( English only ) , People 's Republic of China ( Simplified Chinese only ) and Brazil ( Brazilian Portuguese only ) .
" So...not Canada ?
* sigh * Well , time for Nod32 or kaspersky I guess.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I decided i'd check it out for my XP box....

"Not available in your country or region
You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.
This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).
"


So...not Canada?
*sigh*

Well, time for Nod32 or kaspersky I guess...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462513</id>
	<title>Re:Yes they can</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245861180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Microsoft CAN convince people they can put out a quality product. If fact, they have convinced many, many people. Anyone running Windows7 beta or RC1 is convinced they can do it if they want to. I work in the Linux environment all day, but when I sit down in front of my personal machine, I don't want to "make it work" I want to have it work. Windows  7 does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Microsoft CAN convince people they can put out a quality product .
If fact , they have convinced many , many people .
Anyone running Windows7 beta or RC1 is convinced they can do it if they want to .
I work in the Linux environment all day , but when I sit down in front of my personal machine , I do n't want to " make it work " I want to have it work .
Windows 7 does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Microsoft CAN convince people they can put out a quality product.
If fact, they have convinced many, many people.
Anyone running Windows7 beta or RC1 is convinced they can do it if they want to.
I work in the Linux environment all day, but when I sit down in front of my personal machine, I don't want to "make it work" I want to have it work.
Windows  7 does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28470671</id>
	<title>Great song by fleetwod mac :</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1245962040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lieeees"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Tell me lies , tell me sweet little lieeees "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lieeees"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461781</id>
	<title>Like getting a robber...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245855480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to guard your house/grave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to guard your house/grave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to guard your house/grave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459631</id>
	<title>It makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245841740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Microsoft style is to solve problems by throwing a lot of people at it, and they use that strategy fairly well.  Instead of simplifying the structure to where it can be reasonably dealt with by a small group of people, they are happy to make it big.  For example, compare the number of system calls in the windows kernel with the number in the Linux kernel.  Having so many more system calls means each internal refactor will have to take more into consideration, as well as requiring more testing, but it's ok, Microsoft is happy to throw lots of testers at it.  The ASP.net model, which basically wraps a whole system around html/javascript to encapsulate it and make it easier for the average programmer was an amazingly man-hour intensive job, once again requiring lots of testing and many special cases, and yet Microsoft did it. <br> <br>
That operating style is especially well suited to AV software, because it is a job that can be easily broken up and handed out to different programmers, and catching all the viruses is a job that can be easily helped if you have a lot of programmers and testers.  It makes sense that Microsoft would write good AV software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Microsoft style is to solve problems by throwing a lot of people at it , and they use that strategy fairly well .
Instead of simplifying the structure to where it can be reasonably dealt with by a small group of people , they are happy to make it big .
For example , compare the number of system calls in the windows kernel with the number in the Linux kernel .
Having so many more system calls means each internal refactor will have to take more into consideration , as well as requiring more testing , but it 's ok , Microsoft is happy to throw lots of testers at it .
The ASP.net model , which basically wraps a whole system around html/javascript to encapsulate it and make it easier for the average programmer was an amazingly man-hour intensive job , once again requiring lots of testing and many special cases , and yet Microsoft did it .
That operating style is especially well suited to AV software , because it is a job that can be easily broken up and handed out to different programmers , and catching all the viruses is a job that can be easily helped if you have a lot of programmers and testers .
It makes sense that Microsoft would write good AV software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Microsoft style is to solve problems by throwing a lot of people at it, and they use that strategy fairly well.
Instead of simplifying the structure to where it can be reasonably dealt with by a small group of people, they are happy to make it big.
For example, compare the number of system calls in the windows kernel with the number in the Linux kernel.
Having so many more system calls means each internal refactor will have to take more into consideration, as well as requiring more testing, but it's ok, Microsoft is happy to throw lots of testers at it.
The ASP.net model, which basically wraps a whole system around html/javascript to encapsulate it and make it easier for the average programmer was an amazingly man-hour intensive job, once again requiring lots of testing and many special cases, and yet Microsoft did it.
That operating style is especially well suited to AV software, because it is a job that can be easily broken up and handed out to different programmers, and catching all the viruses is a job that can be easily helped if you have a lot of programmers and testers.
It makes sense that Microsoft would write good AV software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603</id>
	<title>Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245841680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should be interesting to see if the current AV vendors try the anti-trust card with MS for this. I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be interesting to see if the current AV vendors try the anti-trust card with MS for this .
I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be interesting to see if the current AV vendors try the anti-trust card with MS for this.
I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463343</id>
	<title>Re:Great if you're living in one of 5 countries...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245870900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well you should ignore that. I'm from Bahamas and I got the software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you should ignore that .
I 'm from Bahamas and I got the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you should ignore that.
I'm from Bahamas and I got the software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460399</id>
	<title>Re:Malware?</title>
	<author>Talchas</author>
	<datestamp>1245845640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even against viruses, trojans and worms, it really won't stop them from getting owned. It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones. And new ones often will take out the antivirus, leaving you with an even falser sense of security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even against viruses , trojans and worms , it really wo n't stop them from getting owned .
It may help against old viruses spreading , but it is unlikely to help much against new ones .
And new ones often will take out the antivirus , leaving you with an even falser sense of security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even against viruses, trojans and worms, it really won't stop them from getting owned.
It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones.
And new ones often will take out the antivirus, leaving you with an even falser sense of security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28589197</id>
	<title>Education</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246794300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best defense against these attacks is to be educated in how they infect your system. Not even the "third reich" of protection can stop the end-user from clicking the installer link that gets the system infected. This rant from Symantec is purely a complaint about the potential loss of profits. The whole cat and mouse game that is Virus/Spyware/Malware protection is a complete waste money that could be put to better use. STOP CLICKING THE FREAKING POPUPS!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best defense against these attacks is to be educated in how they infect your system .
Not even the " third reich " of protection can stop the end-user from clicking the installer link that gets the system infected .
This rant from Symantec is purely a complaint about the potential loss of profits .
The whole cat and mouse game that is Virus/Spyware/Malware protection is a complete waste money that could be put to better use .
STOP CLICKING THE FREAKING POPUPS ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best defense against these attacks is to be educated in how they infect your system.
Not even the "third reich" of protection can stop the end-user from clicking the installer link that gets the system infected.
This rant from Symantec is purely a complaint about the potential loss of profits.
The whole cat and mouse game that is Virus/Spyware/Malware protection is a complete waste money that could be put to better use.
STOP CLICKING THE FREAKING POPUPS!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460567</id>
	<title>Re:directed self-interest</title>
	<author>dublin</author>
	<datestamp>1245846420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any computer consultant worth his salt won't get drawn into silly squabbles over OS/platform/software/language/etc., and will recommend the *best* solution for the client.  Don't ever let bigotry blind you...</p><p>I describe myself as a dyed-in-the-wool Unix proponent (24 years now), but I run Windows on my desktop machines, and have recommended Windows on many occasions, including some large-scale Fortune 20 deployments, where it made more sense.  (For servers, I avoid Windows unless the app environment really needs it or runs markedly better there, but there are still a good number of those situations.  Given my druthers, I design new systems around open source technologies, mostly because of the lifecycle cost savings.  Auditing all those licenses is a non-trivial cost and PITA, not to mention acquiring them in the first place - and avoiding licensed software makes leveraging cloud computing *much* easier...)</p><p>Windows certainly has its faults, and I'm a big critic, but it also has its place, and for a good number of things (even some server-based things), Windows is the best choice - sometimes by a good margin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any computer consultant worth his salt wo n't get drawn into silly squabbles over OS/platform/software/language/etc. , and will recommend the * best * solution for the client .
Do n't ever let bigotry blind you...I describe myself as a dyed-in-the-wool Unix proponent ( 24 years now ) , but I run Windows on my desktop machines , and have recommended Windows on many occasions , including some large-scale Fortune 20 deployments , where it made more sense .
( For servers , I avoid Windows unless the app environment really needs it or runs markedly better there , but there are still a good number of those situations .
Given my druthers , I design new systems around open source technologies , mostly because of the lifecycle cost savings .
Auditing all those licenses is a non-trivial cost and PITA , not to mention acquiring them in the first place - and avoiding licensed software makes leveraging cloud computing * much * easier... ) Windows certainly has its faults , and I 'm a big critic , but it also has its place , and for a good number of things ( even some server-based things ) , Windows is the best choice - sometimes by a good margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any computer consultant worth his salt won't get drawn into silly squabbles over OS/platform/software/language/etc., and will recommend the *best* solution for the client.
Don't ever let bigotry blind you...I describe myself as a dyed-in-the-wool Unix proponent (24 years now), but I run Windows on my desktop machines, and have recommended Windows on many occasions, including some large-scale Fortune 20 deployments, where it made more sense.
(For servers, I avoid Windows unless the app environment really needs it or runs markedly better there, but there are still a good number of those situations.
Given my druthers, I design new systems around open source technologies, mostly because of the lifecycle cost savings.
Auditing all those licenses is a non-trivial cost and PITA, not to mention acquiring them in the first place - and avoiding licensed software makes leveraging cloud computing *much* easier...)Windows certainly has its faults, and I'm a big critic, but it also has its place, and for a good number of things (even some server-based things), Windows is the best choice - sometimes by a good margin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466081</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1245943260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?</i></p><p>Yes.</p><p>Take my iPhone for example.</p><p>But more seriously, it is possible to create a complete secure OS that is immune to viruses and malware if you sandbox or sacrifice usability.</p><p>The question is how much usability do you want to give up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol ? Yes.Take my iPhone for example.But more seriously , it is possible to create a complete secure OS that is immune to viruses and malware if you sandbox or sacrifice usability.The question is how much usability do you want to give up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?Yes.Take my iPhone for example.But more seriously, it is possible to create a complete secure OS that is immune to viruses and malware if you sandbox or sacrifice usability.The question is how much usability do you want to give up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460993</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245849060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.</i> </p><p>It isn't one OS.</p><p>Every OS is "broken" in the sense that there are always avenues of attack.</p><p> It can't be otherwise so long as mere humans have the final say on which programs can be installed and which programs can be run.</p><p>To call something "Malware" is fundamentally a value judgment.</p><p>I think the geek would be the first to howl if he could <b>only</b> install the apps approved and certified-safe by Redmond, Cupertino, or his favorite Linux distro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS .
It is n't one OS.Every OS is " broken " in the sense that there are always avenues of attack .
It ca n't be otherwise so long as mere humans have the final say on which programs can be installed and which programs can be run.To call something " Malware " is fundamentally a value judgment.I think the geek would be the first to howl if he could only install the apps approved and certified-safe by Redmond , Cupertino , or his favorite Linux distro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.
It isn't one OS.Every OS is "broken" in the sense that there are always avenues of attack.
It can't be otherwise so long as mere humans have the final say on which programs can be installed and which programs can be run.To call something "Malware" is fundamentally a value judgment.I think the geek would be the first to howl if he could only install the apps approved and certified-safe by Redmond, Cupertino, or his favorite Linux distro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466293</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds positive</title>
	<author>Sinbios</author>
	<datestamp>1245944340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml" title="softpedia.com">http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml</a> [softpedia.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml [ softpedia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml [softpedia.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477549</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1245951960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would only be true if GM had spent years telling everyone they should have their own tow truck to deal with the abysmal quality of GM cars and if GM's cars where actually so bad that that made enough sense to GM car owners that most of them did.</p><p>
But seriously, congrats on using the car analogy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would only be true if GM had spent years telling everyone they should have their own tow truck to deal with the abysmal quality of GM cars and if GM 's cars where actually so bad that that made enough sense to GM car owners that most of them did .
But seriously , congrats on using the car analogy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would only be true if GM had spent years telling everyone they should have their own tow truck to deal with the abysmal quality of GM cars and if GM's cars where actually so bad that that made enough sense to GM car owners that most of them did.
But seriously, congrats on using the car analogy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541</id>
	<title>Malware?</title>
	<author>homes32</author>
	<datestamp>1245841380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>viruses, trojans, and worms, are all nice and dandy but what about malware? That is what most people have to worry about these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>viruses , trojans , and worms , are all nice and dandy but what about malware ?
That is what most people have to worry about these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>viruses, trojans, and worms, are all nice and dandy but what about malware?
That is what most people have to worry about these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28469017</id>
	<title>Re:Great if you're living in one of 5 countries...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245955620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the fifth country?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the fifth country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the fifth country?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463747</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245962220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't plugging security holes.  Its producing a product which will be direct competition to other products that have been around for ages.  If they then choose to bundle the MS one with windows, that will basically undercut all other products out of the market.  I'm pretty sure thats illegal by most antitrust laws but they'll weave their way out of it somehow.</p><p>The issue is not about how secure everything is.  You're looking at it from the point of view of whats best for the people and the common good.  But using their existing monopoly to promote their own product is not fair to all other players in the industry.  It is then no longer a level playing field.</p><p>People argue that they should be able to do whatever they want with their own product.  But they overlook the fact that MS is a monopoly and that comes with responsibility.  There are extra laws specifically for monopolies and they are there for a reason.  If MS make the best product then they will not need to bundle it with windows for it to succeed.  In a fair marketplace, it should just exist alongside all other existing products.  Whether the best option is to bundle multiple trial versions with windows so that the pc is protected right away - I dont know, but that would make the most sense to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't plugging security holes .
Its producing a product which will be direct competition to other products that have been around for ages .
If they then choose to bundle the MS one with windows , that will basically undercut all other products out of the market .
I 'm pretty sure thats illegal by most antitrust laws but they 'll weave their way out of it somehow.The issue is not about how secure everything is .
You 're looking at it from the point of view of whats best for the people and the common good .
But using their existing monopoly to promote their own product is not fair to all other players in the industry .
It is then no longer a level playing field.People argue that they should be able to do whatever they want with their own product .
But they overlook the fact that MS is a monopoly and that comes with responsibility .
There are extra laws specifically for monopolies and they are there for a reason .
If MS make the best product then they will not need to bundle it with windows for it to succeed .
In a fair marketplace , it should just exist alongside all other existing products .
Whether the best option is to bundle multiple trial versions with windows so that the pc is protected right away - I dont know , but that would make the most sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't plugging security holes.
Its producing a product which will be direct competition to other products that have been around for ages.
If they then choose to bundle the MS one with windows, that will basically undercut all other products out of the market.
I'm pretty sure thats illegal by most antitrust laws but they'll weave their way out of it somehow.The issue is not about how secure everything is.
You're looking at it from the point of view of whats best for the people and the common good.
But using their existing monopoly to promote their own product is not fair to all other players in the industry.
It is then no longer a level playing field.People argue that they should be able to do whatever they want with their own product.
But they overlook the fact that MS is a monopoly and that comes with responsibility.
There are extra laws specifically for monopolies and they are there for a reason.
If MS make the best product then they will not need to bundle it with windows for it to succeed.
In a fair marketplace, it should just exist alongside all other existing products.
Whether the best option is to bundle multiple trial versions with windows so that the pc is protected right away - I dont know, but that would make the most sense to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459711</id>
	<title>MS still has superb programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245842160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always been this way. Microsoft rests on their laurels until an upstart company starts making money at their expense. Between Mac, Linux, and the insane proliferation of general crapware, MS has a real image problem on their hands. Luckily for Microsoft, the best and the brightest can be wooed by the kind of money they're able to throw around. When they throw their top programmers at a job, the results are stunning, just witness the turnaround from early Vista to the current beta of Windows 7.<br>Sadly, the end result will be bad for consumers. Other security companies will be badly hurt by the release of this freebie, and MS will go back to sleep, leaving the security marketplace to stagnate like the pre-Firefox browser market stagnated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always been this way .
Microsoft rests on their laurels until an upstart company starts making money at their expense .
Between Mac , Linux , and the insane proliferation of general crapware , MS has a real image problem on their hands .
Luckily for Microsoft , the best and the brightest can be wooed by the kind of money they 're able to throw around .
When they throw their top programmers at a job , the results are stunning , just witness the turnaround from early Vista to the current beta of Windows 7.Sadly , the end result will be bad for consumers .
Other security companies will be badly hurt by the release of this freebie , and MS will go back to sleep , leaving the security marketplace to stagnate like the pre-Firefox browser market stagnated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always been this way.
Microsoft rests on their laurels until an upstart company starts making money at their expense.
Between Mac, Linux, and the insane proliferation of general crapware, MS has a real image problem on their hands.
Luckily for Microsoft, the best and the brightest can be wooed by the kind of money they're able to throw around.
When they throw their top programmers at a job, the results are stunning, just witness the turnaround from early Vista to the current beta of Windows 7.Sadly, the end result will be bad for consumers.
Other security companies will be badly hurt by the release of this freebie, and MS will go back to sleep, leaving the security marketplace to stagnate like the pre-Firefox browser market stagnated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477525</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1245951720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Calling something Malware may be a value judgement.  But certification from Redmond is neither required not sufficient to make something not Malware.
</p><p>
 My judgement tells me that if I was tricked into installing something I did not want or if the software has hidden function it does not claim to do or if it is installed behind my back, it's Malware.  There is plently Microsoft software that fits that description on that enable other software to fit that description (Thanks for ClickOnce!) so I doubt a certification from Microsoft will really change that.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling something Malware may be a value judgement .
But certification from Redmond is neither required not sufficient to make something not Malware .
My judgement tells me that if I was tricked into installing something I did not want or if the software has hidden function it does not claim to do or if it is installed behind my back , it 's Malware .
There is plently Microsoft software that fits that description on that enable other software to fit that description ( Thanks for ClickOnce !
) so I doubt a certification from Microsoft will really change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling something Malware may be a value judgement.
But certification from Redmond is neither required not sufficient to make something not Malware.
My judgement tells me that if I was tricked into installing something I did not want or if the software has hidden function it does not claim to do or if it is installed behind my back, it's Malware.
There is plently Microsoft software that fits that description on that enable other software to fit that description (Thanks for ClickOnce!
) so I doubt a certification from Microsoft will really change that.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462511</id>
	<title>If you say they're trusted, they're not.</title>
	<author>synthesizerpatel</author>
	<datestamp>1245861060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"independent and trusted firm"</p><p>It's fascinating to me as I read marketing lies how unimaginative and similar they are to 419 scammers. While marketing people aren't crafting their message for critical thinkers you would imagine at some point in a marketing seminar somewhere someone would jump up and say</p><p><b>Instead of making the subject line of the e-mail "You've won the lottery", how about "Dearly beloved?"</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" independent and trusted firm " It 's fascinating to me as I read marketing lies how unimaginative and similar they are to 419 scammers .
While marketing people are n't crafting their message for critical thinkers you would imagine at some point in a marketing seminar somewhere someone would jump up and sayInstead of making the subject line of the e-mail " You 've won the lottery " , how about " Dearly beloved ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"independent and trusted firm"It's fascinating to me as I read marketing lies how unimaginative and similar they are to 419 scammers.
While marketing people aren't crafting their message for critical thinkers you would imagine at some point in a marketing seminar somewhere someone would jump up and sayInstead of making the subject line of the e-mail "You've won the lottery", how about "Dearly beloved?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459653</id>
	<title>Re:Malware?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1245841860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but what about malware? That is what most people have to worry about these days.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If you're running a Microsoft OS, you've already installed the mother-of-all-malware anyway, so why worry? Trust Microsoft. No seriously, you don't have a choice. TRUST MICROSOFT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but what about malware ?
That is what most people have to worry about these days .
      If you 're running a Microsoft OS , you 've already installed the mother-of-all-malware anyway , so why worry ?
Trust Microsoft .
No seriously , you do n't have a choice .
TRUST MICROSOFT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but what about malware?
That is what most people have to worry about these days.
      If you're running a Microsoft OS, you've already installed the mother-of-all-malware anyway, so why worry?
Trust Microsoft.
No seriously, you don't have a choice.
TRUST MICROSOFT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460759</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245847500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odd, I got along for years without using it.</p><p>It is simple:<br>1. Use Firefox (fewer 0-day exploits)<br>2. Don't browse porn/warez<br>3. Don't use P2P at all (no malware)<br>4. Run a web virus scan every couple of months just to be safe.</p><p>The users, and the insistence on admin privileges are the problem. At least MS is slowly working on the latter. The former is unfixable. OS X is NO better on many counts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd , I got along for years without using it.It is simple : 1 .
Use Firefox ( fewer 0-day exploits ) 2 .
Do n't browse porn/warez3 .
Do n't use P2P at all ( no malware ) 4 .
Run a web virus scan every couple of months just to be safe.The users , and the insistence on admin privileges are the problem .
At least MS is slowly working on the latter .
The former is unfixable .
OS X is NO better on many counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd, I got along for years without using it.It is simple:1.
Use Firefox (fewer 0-day exploits)2.
Don't browse porn/warez3.
Don't use P2P at all (no malware)4.
Run a web virus scan every couple of months just to be safe.The users, and the insistence on admin privileges are the problem.
At least MS is slowly working on the latter.
The former is unfixable.
OS X is NO better on many counts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460235</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245844980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsofts Server products works great until:</p><p>1. You want to do something with them that's slightly out of the mainstream.</p><p>2. You run into some kind of bug, and have to actually debug the product.</p><p>Look, I understand that for web developers hired for doing a small/medium sized web development project IIS/Windows Server is a quick setup. Hell, it'll even work and perform pretty well at a decent pricetag.</p><p>Ever tried maintaining multiple instances of those things, ever had to to kerberos crossrealm integration between a Microsoft Active Directory and a MIT/Heimdal kerberos setup or a Novell eDirectory/kerberos setup for that matter. It's a nightmare of weird Micorsoft tools you have to use, limited documentation (because who would EVER want to use anything but MS) and just plain frustration.</p><p>Look I understand that Microsofts user interfaces help a lot of people get jobs done in IT, but don't kid yourself, when you get beyond just managing small to medium setups all that nifty automation becomes a huge stick you have to work around to get the job done. I don't think there are many people who work with infrastructure and have worked with Microsoft and Unix platforms that don't know what I mean.</p><p>Non-Microsoft software platforms typically require more knowledge than the integrated solutions Microsoft deliver and they take more time to get running, but they're usually limited far more closely to what you can imagine them to do, instead of what Microsoft imagined them to do what they were released.</p><p>What do I want from Microsoft? Flexibility from their products, and a bit of good grace from them in the marketsplace, interoperability if you will...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsofts Server products works great until : 1 .
You want to do something with them that 's slightly out of the mainstream.2 .
You run into some kind of bug , and have to actually debug the product.Look , I understand that for web developers hired for doing a small/medium sized web development project IIS/Windows Server is a quick setup .
Hell , it 'll even work and perform pretty well at a decent pricetag.Ever tried maintaining multiple instances of those things , ever had to to kerberos crossrealm integration between a Microsoft Active Directory and a MIT/Heimdal kerberos setup or a Novell eDirectory/kerberos setup for that matter .
It 's a nightmare of weird Micorsoft tools you have to use , limited documentation ( because who would EVER want to use anything but MS ) and just plain frustration.Look I understand that Microsofts user interfaces help a lot of people get jobs done in IT , but do n't kid yourself , when you get beyond just managing small to medium setups all that nifty automation becomes a huge stick you have to work around to get the job done .
I do n't think there are many people who work with infrastructure and have worked with Microsoft and Unix platforms that do n't know what I mean.Non-Microsoft software platforms typically require more knowledge than the integrated solutions Microsoft deliver and they take more time to get running , but they 're usually limited far more closely to what you can imagine them to do , instead of what Microsoft imagined them to do what they were released.What do I want from Microsoft ?
Flexibility from their products , and a bit of good grace from them in the marketsplace , interoperability if you will.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsofts Server products works great until:1.
You want to do something with them that's slightly out of the mainstream.2.
You run into some kind of bug, and have to actually debug the product.Look, I understand that for web developers hired for doing a small/medium sized web development project IIS/Windows Server is a quick setup.
Hell, it'll even work and perform pretty well at a decent pricetag.Ever tried maintaining multiple instances of those things, ever had to to kerberos crossrealm integration between a Microsoft Active Directory and a MIT/Heimdal kerberos setup or a Novell eDirectory/kerberos setup for that matter.
It's a nightmare of weird Micorsoft tools you have to use, limited documentation (because who would EVER want to use anything but MS) and just plain frustration.Look I understand that Microsofts user interfaces help a lot of people get jobs done in IT, but don't kid yourself, when you get beyond just managing small to medium setups all that nifty automation becomes a huge stick you have to work around to get the job done.
I don't think there are many people who work with infrastructure and have worked with Microsoft and Unix platforms that don't know what I mean.Non-Microsoft software platforms typically require more knowledge than the integrated solutions Microsoft deliver and they take more time to get running, but they're usually limited far more closely to what you can imagine them to do, instead of what Microsoft imagined them to do what they were released.What do I want from Microsoft?
Flexibility from their products, and a bit of good grace from them in the marketsplace, interoperability if you will...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460135</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245844500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.</p></div><p>How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their "broken OS?"  Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?<br> <br>
Oh ok... Thought so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their " broken OS ?
" Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol ?
Oh ok... Thought so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their "broken OS?
"  Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?
Oh ok... Thought so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460099</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>Skylinux</author>
	<datestamp>1245844260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?</p></div><p>I don't know how BUT I do know that it will take a while considering the speed of Norton AV (consumer edition)....</p><p>ohh and anti competitive law suit in the EU in 3,2,1</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model ? I do n't know how BUT I do know that it will take a while considering the speed of Norton AV ( consumer edition ) ....ohh and anti competitive law suit in the EU in 3,2,1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?I don't know how BUT I do know that it will take a while considering the speed of Norton AV (consumer edition)....ohh and anti competitive law suit in the EU in 3,2,1
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466037</id>
	<title>They Aren't Fixing Their Broken OS(Re:Anti-trust?)</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1245943020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd have a good point if they were actually trying "...fix their broken OS" but that isn't what is happening.  They are offering another package of software to cover up the holes in their broken OS instead of fixing any flawed software component.  I'd give a lot more leeway to Microsoft if they were actually correcting Windows and making AV vendors go out of business due to a lack of flaws that need protection but that isn't what is going on here.  The flaws are still very much there where they only thing that has changed is which vendor is providing the Band-Aid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd have a good point if they were actually trying " ...fix their broken OS " but that is n't what is happening .
They are offering another package of software to cover up the holes in their broken OS instead of fixing any flawed software component .
I 'd give a lot more leeway to Microsoft if they were actually correcting Windows and making AV vendors go out of business due to a lack of flaws that need protection but that is n't what is going on here .
The flaws are still very much there where they only thing that has changed is which vendor is providing the Band-Aid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd have a good point if they were actually trying "...fix their broken OS" but that isn't what is happening.
They are offering another package of software to cover up the holes in their broken OS instead of fixing any flawed software component.
I'd give a lot more leeway to Microsoft if they were actually correcting Windows and making AV vendors go out of business due to a lack of flaws that need protection but that isn't what is going on here.
The flaws are still very much there where they only thing that has changed is which vendor is providing the Band-Aid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459713</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245842220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People attempting to buy Norton AV should be arrested; then given a choice between installing a completely locked down Linux kiosk, or have their hands and balls chopped off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People attempting to buy Norton AV should be arrested ; then given a choice between installing a completely locked down Linux kiosk , or have their hands and balls chopped off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People attempting to buy Norton AV should be arrested; then given a choice between installing a completely locked down Linux kiosk, or have their hands and balls chopped off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465949</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds positive</title>
	<author>Sinbios</author>
	<datestamp>1245942600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently not available in <b>Canada</b>. That whole piracy thing really tarnished our image<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently not available in Canada .
That whole piracy thing really tarnished our image : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently not available in Canada.
That whole piracy thing really tarnished our image :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463967</id>
	<title>Re:Malware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245921960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone evaluating anti-virus performance on unknown viruses? The procedure isn't that hard:</p><p>- Install the latest version of a bunch of AV on machines.<br>- Wait one month, with the machines turned off.<br>- Turn on the machines without network, to make sure they're unable to autoupdate.<br>- Test them against bad stuff that came out in the past month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone evaluating anti-virus performance on unknown viruses ?
The procedure is n't that hard : - Install the latest version of a bunch of AV on machines.- Wait one month , with the machines turned off.- Turn on the machines without network , to make sure they 're unable to autoupdate.- Test them against bad stuff that came out in the past month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone evaluating anti-virus performance on unknown viruses?
The procedure isn't that hard:- Install the latest version of a bunch of AV on machines.- Wait one month, with the machines turned off.- Turn on the machines without network, to make sure they're unable to autoupdate.- Test them against bad stuff that came out in the past month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460785</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Defender?</title>
	<author>ECCN</author>
	<datestamp>1245847740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Defender is Anti-Spyware only.  Security Essentials is Anti-Virus &amp; Anti-Spyware combined, so it effectively replaces Defender outright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Defender is Anti-Spyware only .
Security Essentials is Anti-Virus &amp; Anti-Spyware combined , so it effectively replaces Defender outright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defender is Anti-Spyware only.
Security Essentials is Anti-Virus &amp; Anti-Spyware combined, so it effectively replaces Defender outright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459695</id>
	<title>The question is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245842100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we need MS antivirus software in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we need MS antivirus software in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we need MS antivirus software in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460273</id>
	<title>About time</title>
	<author>avandesande</author>
	<datestamp>1245845100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you consider all the extra crap they ship with their OS, including something that is actually useful like this should have been done 10 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you consider all the extra crap they ship with their OS , including something that is actually useful like this should have been done 10 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you consider all the extra crap they ship with their OS, including something that is actually useful like this should have been done 10 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464329</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds positive</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1245926340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).</i></p><p>Isn't that list of countries the ones bot-spamming the most crap out of their PCs?</p><p>Perhaps its more targetted than conspiracy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This beta is available only to customers in the United States , Israel ( English only ) , People 's Republic of China ( Simplified Chinese only ) and Brazil ( Brazilian Portuguese only ) .Is n't that list of countries the ones bot-spamming the most crap out of their PCs ? Perhaps its more targetted than conspiracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).Isn't that list of countries the ones bot-spamming the most crap out of their PCs?Perhaps its more targetted than conspiracy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460003</id>
	<title>Microsoft Hate</title>
	<author>xxuserxx</author>
	<datestamp>1245843720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So much hatred towards Microsoft here.  My experiences with Server 2008 and Windows 7 have been nothing short of stellar. Terminal services are rediculously easy to setup through IIS (which happens to be more secure than Apache currently) and Windows7 benchmarks are better than XP. What else do you guys want from Microsoft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much hatred towards Microsoft here .
My experiences with Server 2008 and Windows 7 have been nothing short of stellar .
Terminal services are rediculously easy to setup through IIS ( which happens to be more secure than Apache currently ) and Windows7 benchmarks are better than XP .
What else do you guys want from Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much hatred towards Microsoft here.
My experiences with Server 2008 and Windows 7 have been nothing short of stellar.
Terminal services are rediculously easy to setup through IIS (which happens to be more secure than Apache currently) and Windows7 benchmarks are better than XP.
What else do you guys want from Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460945</id>
	<title>Re:It seems wrong for an OS vendor/maker to do thi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245848760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft still cannot fix the "stupid user" problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it. And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything. But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system doesn't stop here. Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the "imperial" one behind... well I can dream can't I?</p></div><p>What do you think UAC is? Yes, that much maligned UAC that people turn off. It is a way to unlock the system to install software, or elevate priviledges from a standard user to an administrator. There are few differences between sudo and UAC, but everybody seems to hate the latter. The ONE revolutionary secure thing Microsoft has done in Windows, is one of the most hated. I am not surprised.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft still can not fix the " stupid user " problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it .
And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze 's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything .
But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system does n't stop here .
Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the " imperial " one behind... well I can dream ca n't I ? What do you think UAC is ?
Yes , that much maligned UAC that people turn off .
It is a way to unlock the system to install software , or elevate priviledges from a standard user to an administrator .
There are few differences between sudo and UAC , but everybody seems to hate the latter .
The ONE revolutionary secure thing Microsoft has done in Windows , is one of the most hated .
I am not surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft still cannot fix the "stupid user" problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it.
And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything.
But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system doesn't stop here.
Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the "imperial" one behind... well I can dream can't I?What do you think UAC is?
Yes, that much maligned UAC that people turn off.
It is a way to unlock the system to install software, or elevate priviledges from a standard user to an administrator.
There are few differences between sudo and UAC, but everybody seems to hate the latter.
The ONE revolutionary secure thing Microsoft has done in Windows, is one of the most hated.
I am not surprised.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460243</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245845040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly because most malware targets the most popular OS among average computer users.  If linux was half as popular as windows in your average household, it'd probably need some AV software running too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly because most malware targets the most popular OS among average computer users .
If linux was half as popular as windows in your average household , it 'd probably need some AV software running too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly because most malware targets the most popular OS among average computer users.
If linux was half as popular as windows in your average household, it'd probably need some AV software running too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466321</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>Keeper Of Keys</author>
	<datestamp>1245944520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a thorny issue: there is no defensible reason to coerce your captive OS audience to use a particular browser when there are perfectly good alternatives out there. I would say it's unarguably an abuse of Microsoft's  monopoly, except a lot of people seem not to have got it.</p><p>But a case can be made for an OS keeping itself free of malware. Where is the dividing line between features such as UAC and the Malicious Software Removal Tool, which have already been accepted as an essential part of Windows' security, and a more proactive anti-malware tool like Security Essentials - especially if it's a good as this report says?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a thorny issue : there is no defensible reason to coerce your captive OS audience to use a particular browser when there are perfectly good alternatives out there .
I would say it 's unarguably an abuse of Microsoft 's monopoly , except a lot of people seem not to have got it.But a case can be made for an OS keeping itself free of malware .
Where is the dividing line between features such as UAC and the Malicious Software Removal Tool , which have already been accepted as an essential part of Windows ' security , and a more proactive anti-malware tool like Security Essentials - especially if it 's a good as this report says ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a thorny issue: there is no defensible reason to coerce your captive OS audience to use a particular browser when there are perfectly good alternatives out there.
I would say it's unarguably an abuse of Microsoft's  monopoly, except a lot of people seem not to have got it.But a case can be made for an OS keeping itself free of malware.
Where is the dividing line between features such as UAC and the Malicious Software Removal Tool, which have already been accepted as an essential part of Windows' security, and a more proactive anti-malware tool like Security Essentials - especially if it's a good as this report says?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459759</id>
	<title>BFD: +1, Redundant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245842400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares. It's MicroSLOP.</p><p>Hackingly Yours,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares .
It 's MicroSLOP.Hackingly Yours,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares.
It's MicroSLOP.Hackingly Yours,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459917</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1245843300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't worry, you can still Punch the Monkey and Win a Free Nintendo Wii!!! with just your nose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , you can still Punch the Monkey and Win a Free Nintendo Wii ! ! !
with just your nose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, you can still Punch the Monkey and Win a Free Nintendo Wii!!!
with just your nose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460233</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft Hate</title>
	<author>TexNA55</author>
	<datestamp>1245844980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So much hatred towards Microsoft here.  My experiences with Server 2008 and Windows 7 have been nothing short of stellar. Terminal services are rediculously easy to setup through IIS (which happens to be more secure than Apache currently) and Windows7 benchmarks are better than XP. What else do you guys want from Microsoft?</p></div><p>Compatibility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much hatred towards Microsoft here .
My experiences with Server 2008 and Windows 7 have been nothing short of stellar .
Terminal services are rediculously easy to setup through IIS ( which happens to be more secure than Apache currently ) and Windows7 benchmarks are better than XP .
What else do you guys want from Microsoft ? Compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much hatred towards Microsoft here.
My experiences with Server 2008 and Windows 7 have been nothing short of stellar.
Terminal services are rediculously easy to setup through IIS (which happens to be more secure than Apache currently) and Windows7 benchmarks are better than XP.
What else do you guys want from Microsoft?Compatibility.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463825</id>
	<title>Re:Malware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245963180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones.</p><p>You refer to heuristic scanning, or pro-active security. This means that the software is able to discover new unknown viruses based on their behavior or properties.</p><p>You might be surprised but MS Security Essentials has been found to have the best heuristics (60\%) in retroactive tests (outdated definitions, therefore, unknown viruses) with by far the least number of false positives (which is crucial for good heuristics).</p><p>They even overtook the former leader, NOD32 (and often even in performance).</p><p>Source for heuristics (2009):<br><a href="http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc\_report22.pdf" title="av-comparatives.org">http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc\_report22.pdf</a> [av-comparatives.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It may help against old viruses spreading , but it is unlikely to help much against new ones.You refer to heuristic scanning , or pro-active security .
This means that the software is able to discover new unknown viruses based on their behavior or properties.You might be surprised but MS Security Essentials has been found to have the best heuristics ( 60 \ % ) in retroactive tests ( outdated definitions , therefore , unknown viruses ) with by far the least number of false positives ( which is crucial for good heuristics ) .They even overtook the former leader , NOD32 ( and often even in performance ) .Source for heuristics ( 2009 ) : http : //www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc \ _report22.pdf [ av-comparatives.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones.You refer to heuristic scanning, or pro-active security.
This means that the software is able to discover new unknown viruses based on their behavior or properties.You might be surprised but MS Security Essentials has been found to have the best heuristics (60\%) in retroactive tests (outdated definitions, therefore, unknown viruses) with by far the least number of false positives (which is crucial for good heuristics).They even overtook the former leader, NOD32 (and often even in performance).Source for heuristics (2009):http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc\_report22.pdf [av-comparatives.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459889</id>
	<title>directed self-interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245843120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes. It creates a lot of extra work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes .
It creates a lot of extra work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes.
It creates a lot of extra work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466287</id>
	<title>Re:region locked beta?</title>
	<author>Sinbios</author>
	<datestamp>1245944220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml" title="softpedia.com">http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml</a> [softpedia.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml [ softpedia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml [softpedia.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477235</id>
	<title>Re:Malware?</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1245949260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you are ignoring the fact that Microsoft has earned this reputation.  For decades Microsoft has had bad quality and as a result, bad security.  Back when I was learning to code pattern matchers in my first year programming classes, I was able to write a better matcher than the one they continued to use in DOS at the time.  In DOS the pattern "*a.txt" would match a file named "z.txt".  (The splat gobbled up the whole name and declared success without caring about the 'a' in the pattern.)  Granted, once they shipped it broken, it had to stay broken, but they were (already monopolistic) professionals and I was a wet nose who only thought he knew everything.  That should not have been difficult or recourse intensive (which did matter back then) to get right.
<p>
They've had an occasional high point over the years, but that doesn't beat the overriding trend of their long history.  Their security has improved some in recent years, but that bar wasn't too high to begin with.  You don't just get a reputation like Microsoft's.  You earn it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you are ignoring the fact that Microsoft has earned this reputation .
For decades Microsoft has had bad quality and as a result , bad security .
Back when I was learning to code pattern matchers in my first year programming classes , I was able to write a better matcher than the one they continued to use in DOS at the time .
In DOS the pattern " * a.txt " would match a file named " z.txt " .
( The splat gobbled up the whole name and declared success without caring about the 'a ' in the pattern .
) Granted , once they shipped it broken , it had to stay broken , but they were ( already monopolistic ) professionals and I was a wet nose who only thought he knew everything .
That should not have been difficult or recourse intensive ( which did matter back then ) to get right .
They 've had an occasional high point over the years , but that does n't beat the overriding trend of their long history .
Their security has improved some in recent years , but that bar was n't too high to begin with .
You do n't just get a reputation like Microsoft 's .
You earn it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you are ignoring the fact that Microsoft has earned this reputation.
For decades Microsoft has had bad quality and as a result, bad security.
Back when I was learning to code pattern matchers in my first year programming classes, I was able to write a better matcher than the one they continued to use in DOS at the time.
In DOS the pattern "*a.txt" would match a file named "z.txt".
(The splat gobbled up the whole name and declared success without caring about the 'a' in the pattern.
)  Granted, once they shipped it broken, it had to stay broken, but they were (already monopolistic) professionals and I was a wet nose who only thought he knew everything.
That should not have been difficult or recourse intensive (which did matter back then) to get right.
They've had an occasional high point over the years, but that doesn't beat the overriding trend of their long history.
Their security has improved some in recent years, but that bar wasn't too high to begin with.
You don't just get a reputation like Microsoft's.
You earn it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464777</id>
	<title>Why test against AVG 8.0?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245934380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AVG has been at version 8.5 for some time now, why test against version 8.0?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AVG has been at version 8.5 for some time now , why test against version 8.0 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AVG has been at version 8.5 for some time now, why test against version 8.0?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461151</id>
	<title>Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1245850320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fixing holes in their architecture? I don't think it works that way.</p><p>It's not that MS is incapable of making a more secure OS, it's just making an Windows-compatible secure OS that is the problem.</p><p>People forget (or weren't alive yet) that Windows roots are on a very limited platform that even a Linux kernel can't run on (no hardware support for "root" on a 8088).</p><p>So far legacy compatibility has more business value than a more secure architecture (at least on the desktop).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixing holes in their architecture ?
I do n't think it works that way.It 's not that MS is incapable of making a more secure OS , it 's just making an Windows-compatible secure OS that is the problem.People forget ( or were n't alive yet ) that Windows roots are on a very limited platform that even a Linux kernel ca n't run on ( no hardware support for " root " on a 8088 ) .So far legacy compatibility has more business value than a more secure architecture ( at least on the desktop ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixing holes in their architecture?
I don't think it works that way.It's not that MS is incapable of making a more secure OS, it's just making an Windows-compatible secure OS that is the problem.People forget (or weren't alive yet) that Windows roots are on a very limited platform that even a Linux kernel can't run on (no hardware support for "root" on a 8088).So far legacy compatibility has more business value than a more secure architecture (at least on the desktop).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462715</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1245863520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Microsoft has raised the bar.    To continue to have people buy their product, their competitors will need to further differentiate themselves from Microsoft's now free offering.
</p><p>
That means doing it better, providing features the customers want (that MS doesn't deliver), innovating.
</p><p>
e.g.  Enhancements  and capabilities that are beyond Microsoft's expertise, or that MS isn't interested in delivering.
</p><p>
Probably mostly for enterprises, security management capabilities.   There are elements of security to manage on your network <b>OTHER</b> than scanning and trying to block known infections.
</p><p>
And 'group policy' is not perfect, or necessarily ideal, for endpoint security management.   The security vendors might be able to come up with more powerful solutions.
</p><p>
What about unknown threats?  What about security patches in OS and third-party product....
</p><p>
Where's the popup from system security software warning the user that there's a known exploit for a bug in their current version of program Xyzabcd PDF viewer, being actively exploited??
</p><p>
Why rely on being able to detect a virus in a new untrustworthy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.EXE a user downloaded,   why not also sandbox all untrusted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.EXEs, unless the user is authorized to install software,  and manually taking a 'privilege elevation' action ?
</p><p>
Nornot/Symantec aren't the be-all, end-all of system security.   There are also antimalware/security apps like Spybot S'n D, Adaware, Malwarebytes,  and commercial ones..  eEye Blink, PrevX,  SUPERAntiSpyware.com, Avira.
</p><p>
Which aren't $100-year subscriptions and provide their own advantages.
</p><p>
The higher the  market share of the MS AV product, the less you should trust it  (malware will specifically aim to be undetectable, or to evade the detection of and disable that specific product).
</p><p>
It's a lot easier for badware authors to 'evade' an  antimalware product, if there's only one they really need to worry about.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has raised the bar .
To continue to have people buy their product , their competitors will need to further differentiate themselves from Microsoft 's now free offering .
That means doing it better , providing features the customers want ( that MS does n't deliver ) , innovating .
e.g. Enhancements and capabilities that are beyond Microsoft 's expertise , or that MS is n't interested in delivering .
Probably mostly for enterprises , security management capabilities .
There are elements of security to manage on your network OTHER than scanning and trying to block known infections .
And 'group policy ' is not perfect , or necessarily ideal , for endpoint security management .
The security vendors might be able to come up with more powerful solutions .
What about unknown threats ?
What about security patches in OS and third-party product... . Where 's the popup from system security software warning the user that there 's a known exploit for a bug in their current version of program Xyzabcd PDF viewer , being actively exploited ? ?
Why rely on being able to detect a virus in a new untrustworthy .EXE a user downloaded , why not also sandbox all untrusted .EXEs , unless the user is authorized to install software , and manually taking a 'privilege elevation ' action ?
Nornot/Symantec are n't the be-all , end-all of system security .
There are also antimalware/security apps like Spybot S'n D , Adaware , Malwarebytes , and commercial ones.. eEye Blink , PrevX , SUPERAntiSpyware.com , Avira .
Which are n't $ 100-year subscriptions and provide their own advantages .
The higher the market share of the MS AV product , the less you should trust it ( malware will specifically aim to be undetectable , or to evade the detection of and disable that specific product ) .
It 's a lot easier for badware authors to 'evade ' an antimalware product , if there 's only one they really need to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Microsoft has raised the bar.
To continue to have people buy their product, their competitors will need to further differentiate themselves from Microsoft's now free offering.
That means doing it better, providing features the customers want (that MS doesn't deliver), innovating.
e.g.  Enhancements  and capabilities that are beyond Microsoft's expertise, or that MS isn't interested in delivering.
Probably mostly for enterprises, security management capabilities.
There are elements of security to manage on your network OTHER than scanning and trying to block known infections.
And 'group policy' is not perfect, or necessarily ideal, for endpoint security management.
The security vendors might be able to come up with more powerful solutions.
What about unknown threats?
What about security patches in OS and third-party product....

Where's the popup from system security software warning the user that there's a known exploit for a bug in their current version of program Xyzabcd PDF viewer, being actively exploited??
Why rely on being able to detect a virus in a new untrustworthy .EXE a user downloaded,   why not also sandbox all untrusted .EXEs, unless the user is authorized to install software,  and manually taking a 'privilege elevation' action ?
Nornot/Symantec aren't the be-all, end-all of system security.
There are also antimalware/security apps like Spybot S'n D, Adaware, Malwarebytes,  and commercial ones..  eEye Blink, PrevX,  SUPERAntiSpyware.com, Avira.
Which aren't $100-year subscriptions and provide their own advantages.
The higher the  market share of the MS AV product, the less you should trust it  (malware will specifically aim to be undetectable, or to evade the detection of and disable that specific product).
It's a lot easier for badware authors to 'evade' an  antimalware product, if there's only one they really need to worry about.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460039</id>
	<title>Maybe, but...</title>
	<author>fenring</author>
	<datestamp>1245843960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe Microsoft's antivirus is pretty good, I don't know. The problem remains that Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly. That's the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Microsoft 's antivirus is pretty good , I do n't know .
The problem remains that Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly .
That 's the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Microsoft's antivirus is pretty good, I don't know.
The problem remains that Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly.
That's the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459697</id>
	<title>I would hope...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245842160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So far it's been running very well. I would presume that they should be able to make something that will protect their own operating system after all they did code it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So far it 's been running very well .
I would presume that they should be able to make something that will protect their own operating system after all they did code it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far it's been running very well.
I would presume that they should be able to make something that will protect their own operating system after all they did code it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465867</id>
	<title>Whats with the intense astroturfing</title>
	<author>SoulRider</author>
	<datestamp>1245942240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Microsoft have a big release coming up?  Just curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Microsoft have a big release coming up ?
Just curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Microsoft have a big release coming up?
Just curious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461919</id>
	<title>region locked beta?</title>
	<author>unfunk</author>
	<datestamp>1245856620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just tried to get the beta and got this message;<blockquote><div><p> <b>Not available in your country or region</b> <br> <br>

You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.<br> <br>

This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just tried to get the beta and got this message ; Not available in your country or region You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable .
This beta is available only to customers in the United States , Israel ( English only ) , People 's Republic of China ( Simplified Chinese only ) and Brazil ( Brazilian Portuguese only ) .
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just tried to get the beta and got this message; Not available in your country or region  

You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.
This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460041</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>Lucky75</author>
	<datestamp>1245843960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, why is parent modded Troll? It was a perfectly valid argument. Seriously...I wouldn't install Norton if it was given to me for free, which it usually is now, because no one (smart) wants to pay for bloated malware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , why is parent modded Troll ?
It was a perfectly valid argument .
Seriously...I would n't install Norton if it was given to me for free , which it usually is now , because no one ( smart ) wants to pay for bloated malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, why is parent modded Troll?
It was a perfectly valid argument.
Seriously...I wouldn't install Norton if it was given to me for free, which it usually is now, because no one (smart) wants to pay for bloated malware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465525</id>
	<title>Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245940320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed. </i></p><p>Not going to happen. At least not in the EU. MS have pre-emptively unbundled IE8 from Windows 7 even before the EC ruled on the relevant competition law case.<br>Pre-installing this product would probably even get them smacked down in the US; certainly in the EU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed .
Not going to happen .
At least not in the EU .
MS have pre-emptively unbundled IE8 from Windows 7 even before the EC ruled on the relevant competition law case.Pre-installing this product would probably even get them smacked down in the US ; certainly in the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed.
Not going to happen.
At least not in the EU.
MS have pre-emptively unbundled IE8 from Windows 7 even before the EC ruled on the relevant competition law case.Pre-installing this product would probably even get them smacked down in the US; certainly in the EU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465111</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245937560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm. Did anyone ever partner with Microsoft without getting screwed in the end?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
Did anyone ever partner with Microsoft without getting screwed in the end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
Did anyone ever partner with Microsoft without getting screwed in the end?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460043</id>
	<title>Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245844020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft was so invested in security then the company wouldn't had invested in band-aid solutions like anti-viruses but instead would work actively to fix the holes in their software and architecture problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft was so invested in security then the company would n't had invested in band-aid solutions like anti-viruses but instead would work actively to fix the holes in their software and architecture problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft was so invested in security then the company wouldn't had invested in band-aid solutions like anti-viruses but instead would work actively to fix the holes in their software and architecture problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460349</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245845400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe Microsoft's antivirus is pretty good, I don't know. The problem remains that Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly. That's the problem.</p></div></blockquote><p>

So what you mean to say is that you have no knowledge of the subject, and really have no clue what the fuck you're talking about, but since there's an opportunity to bitch about Microsoft, you just couldn't keep your stupid gob shut?<br> <br>

Such keen insight!  I for one will eagerly await the next load of steaming horseshit to escape that bashed-in melon you call a head.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Microsoft 's antivirus is pretty good , I do n't know .
The problem remains that Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly .
That 's the problem .
So what you mean to say is that you have no knowledge of the subject , and really have no clue what the fuck you 're talking about , but since there 's an opportunity to bitch about Microsoft , you just could n't keep your stupid gob shut ?
Such keen insight !
I for one will eagerly await the next load of steaming horseshit to escape that bashed-in melon you call a head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Microsoft's antivirus is pretty good, I don't know.
The problem remains that Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly.
That's the problem.
So what you mean to say is that you have no knowledge of the subject, and really have no clue what the fuck you're talking about, but since there's an opportunity to bitch about Microsoft, you just couldn't keep your stupid gob shut?
Such keen insight!
I for one will eagerly await the next load of steaming horseshit to escape that bashed-in melon you call a head.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460145</id>
	<title>Wouldn't it be better to make the OS secure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245844560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, I may be all naive, but isn't this like selling puncture repair outfits for the condoms you sell with holes in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , I may be all naive , but is n't this like selling puncture repair outfits for the condoms you sell with holes in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, I may be all naive, but isn't this like selling puncture repair outfits for the condoms you sell with holes in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461111</id>
	<title>Re:MS still has superb programmers</title>
	<author>Plekto</author>
	<datestamp>1245850020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, the end result will be bad for consumers. Other security companies will be badly hurt by the release of this freebie, and MS will go back to sleep, leaving the security marketplace to stagnate like the pre-Firefox browser market stagnated.<br>*****</p><p>And the *real* problem isn't if, but WHEN, all of those systems are hit by a piece of mal-ware that is purposely written to defeat Windows 7's built-in AV.  With everyone trusting and few people installing other products, it could be a potential nightmare if the mal-ware writers sit back and let everyone think Windows 7 has fixed the problem(ie - sit and do nothing for about 2-3 years then rip a huge hole in all of the machines at once)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , the end result will be bad for consumers .
Other security companies will be badly hurt by the release of this freebie , and MS will go back to sleep , leaving the security marketplace to stagnate like the pre-Firefox browser market stagnated .
* * * * * And the * real * problem is n't if , but WHEN , all of those systems are hit by a piece of mal-ware that is purposely written to defeat Windows 7 's built-in AV .
With everyone trusting and few people installing other products , it could be a potential nightmare if the mal-ware writers sit back and let everyone think Windows 7 has fixed the problem ( ie - sit and do nothing for about 2-3 years then rip a huge hole in all of the machines at once )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, the end result will be bad for consumers.
Other security companies will be badly hurt by the release of this freebie, and MS will go back to sleep, leaving the security marketplace to stagnate like the pre-Firefox browser market stagnated.
*****And the *real* problem isn't if, but WHEN, all of those systems are hit by a piece of mal-ware that is purposely written to defeat Windows 7's built-in AV.
With everyone trusting and few people installing other products, it could be a potential nightmare if the mal-ware writers sit back and let everyone think Windows 7 has fixed the problem(ie - sit and do nothing for about 2-3 years then rip a huge hole in all of the machines at once)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462793</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1245864480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly I wouldn't mind if symantec and mcaffee left us alone - most customers don't understand the whole subscription to definition update model and are hopelessly out of date. If anything this particular program is a sign that Microsoft is no longer trusting 3rd parties to take care of their platform anymore and is probably a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly I would n't mind if symantec and mcaffee left us alone - most customers do n't understand the whole subscription to definition update model and are hopelessly out of date .
If anything this particular program is a sign that Microsoft is no longer trusting 3rd parties to take care of their platform anymore and is probably a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly I wouldn't mind if symantec and mcaffee left us alone - most customers don't understand the whole subscription to definition update model and are hopelessly out of date.
If anything this particular program is a sign that Microsoft is no longer trusting 3rd parties to take care of their platform anymore and is probably a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463297</id>
	<title>Re:It seems wrong for an OS vendor/maker to do thi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245870360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Microsoft should not be making antivirus software. It should be fixing its vulnerabilities."</p><p>AH ha ha ha!   Only bug upgrades from their system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft should not be making antivirus software .
It should be fixing its vulnerabilities .
" AH ha ha ha !
Only bug upgrades from their system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft should not be making antivirus software.
It should be fixing its vulnerabilities.
"AH ha ha ha!
Only bug upgrades from their system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460999</id>
	<title>Re:I would hope...</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1245849180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their OS gave rise to a cottage industry of antivirus.  The whole reason we need protection is because of their insecure code.  I don't trust them to protect it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their OS gave rise to a cottage industry of antivirus .
The whole reason we need protection is because of their insecure code .
I do n't trust them to protect it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their OS gave rise to a cottage industry of antivirus.
The whole reason we need protection is because of their insecure code.
I don't trust them to protect it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28494479</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds positive</title>
	<author>master811</author>
	<datestamp>1246115340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is so hard to look?</p><p><a href="http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml" title="softpedia.com">http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml</a> [softpedia.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is so hard to look ? http : //www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml [ softpedia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is so hard to look?http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml [softpedia.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461425</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>hot soldering iron</author>
	<datestamp>1245852600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, It is like tow truck companies suing GM for making a more dependable car.</p><p>Wahoo!! I think I got the first car analogy in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , It is like tow truck companies suing GM for making a more dependable car.Wahoo ! !
I think I got the first car analogy in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, It is like tow truck companies suing GM for making a more dependable car.Wahoo!!
I think I got the first car analogy in!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460525</id>
	<title>Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245846240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.</i></p><p>I never disable the Windows Firewall on any computers I use or fix. 99\% of the time a computer is messed up not because of a firewall issue, but because their antivirus software is out of date, they open all e-mail attachments, or do stupid things on MySpace.</p><p><i>Let's face it. If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these "core" activities, would the 3rd party market be as big as it is?</i></p><p>Take any operating system with the amount of marketshare Windows has, and you will find a 3rd party market for security products. It doesn't matter how secure an operating system is, as long as the typical user has access to run processes as an administrator (implicitly or explicitly), the computer will eventually get fucked up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too , yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.I never disable the Windows Firewall on any computers I use or fix .
99 \ % of the time a computer is messed up not because of a firewall issue , but because their antivirus software is out of date , they open all e-mail attachments , or do stupid things on MySpace.Let 's face it .
If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these " core " activities , would the 3rd party market be as big as it is ? Take any operating system with the amount of marketshare Windows has , and you will find a 3rd party market for security products .
It does n't matter how secure an operating system is , as long as the typical user has access to run processes as an administrator ( implicitly or explicitly ) , the computer will eventually get fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.I never disable the Windows Firewall on any computers I use or fix.
99\% of the time a computer is messed up not because of a firewall issue, but because their antivirus software is out of date, they open all e-mail attachments, or do stupid things on MySpace.Let's face it.
If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these "core" activities, would the 3rd party market be as big as it is?Take any operating system with the amount of marketshare Windows has, and you will find a 3rd party market for security products.
It doesn't matter how secure an operating system is, as long as the typical user has access to run processes as an administrator (implicitly or explicitly), the computer will eventually get fucked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459623</id>
	<title>Probably Pretty Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245841740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all that talent, resources, and internal knowledge they should have a slam dunk. Unfortunately I have a lot of distrust built up from over the years about what MS sticks under the hood. It will take many years of good reviews and endorsements before I feed comfortable that the MS AV does not give any special passes to iffy software from a MS partner, or that the MS firewall will correctly block things from going out when configured to if the originator is an MS component.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all that talent , resources , and internal knowledge they should have a slam dunk .
Unfortunately I have a lot of distrust built up from over the years about what MS sticks under the hood .
It will take many years of good reviews and endorsements before I feed comfortable that the MS AV does not give any special passes to iffy software from a MS partner , or that the MS firewall will correctly block things from going out when configured to if the originator is an MS component .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all that talent, resources, and internal knowledge they should have a slam dunk.
Unfortunately I have a lot of distrust built up from over the years about what MS sticks under the hood.
It will take many years of good reviews and endorsements before I feed comfortable that the MS AV does not give any special passes to iffy software from a MS partner, or that the MS firewall will correctly block things from going out when configured to if the originator is an MS component.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477477</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1245951240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll try this one.<p><div class="quote"><p>How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their "broken OS?"</p></div><p>I won't speak the the grandparent post, but to me it's not fixing their broken OS.  Anti-virus is not a fix.  It's a dodge.  It's failure.  It's surrender.  But not a fix.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?</p></div><p>
Again, speaking for myself, if the operating system is vulnerable to a virus or malware, it's broken and should be fixed.  If it's vulnerable without user action, it's seriously broken.  If a user adds the malware the it could be an irresponsible user's fault, but when things like ClickOnce are so common place, you can't honestly place blame on the user.  The OS leaves the user defenceless.
</p><p>
Pretty much every OS is broken in this sense, but Microsoft has spent a long time demonstrating that some software can be (far more) broken than other software.
</p><p>
So, if it was an honest question, for me, the first one.  Any vitriol, perceived or otherwise is just a symptom of a long established history of broken software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll try this one.How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their " broken OS ?
" I wo n't speak the the grandparent post , but to me it 's not fixing their broken OS .
Anti-virus is not a fix .
It 's a dodge .
It 's failure .
It 's surrender .
But not a fix .
Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol ?
Again , speaking for myself , if the operating system is vulnerable to a virus or malware , it 's broken and should be fixed .
If it 's vulnerable without user action , it 's seriously broken .
If a user adds the malware the it could be an irresponsible user 's fault , but when things like ClickOnce are so common place , you ca n't honestly place blame on the user .
The OS leaves the user defenceless .
Pretty much every OS is broken in this sense , but Microsoft has spent a long time demonstrating that some software can be ( far more ) broken than other software .
So , if it was an honest question , for me , the first one .
Any vitriol , perceived or otherwise is just a symptom of a long established history of broken software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll try this one.How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their "broken OS?
"I won't speak the the grandparent post, but to me it's not fixing their broken OS.
Anti-virus is not a fix.
It's a dodge.
It's failure.
It's surrender.
But not a fix.
Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?
Again, speaking for myself, if the operating system is vulnerable to a virus or malware, it's broken and should be fixed.
If it's vulnerable without user action, it's seriously broken.
If a user adds the malware the it could be an irresponsible user's fault, but when things like ClickOnce are so common place, you can't honestly place blame on the user.
The OS leaves the user defenceless.
Pretty much every OS is broken in this sense, but Microsoft has spent a long time demonstrating that some software can be (far more) broken than other software.
So, if it was an honest question, for me, the first one.
Any vitriol, perceived or otherwise is just a symptom of a long established history of broken software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466275</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds positive</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1245944220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tor is a proxy  service you can install and use and bounce off a server in the us, so it looks like you R belong to them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tor is a proxy service you can install and use and bounce off a server in the us , so it looks like you R belong to them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tor is a proxy  service you can install and use and bounce off a server in the us, so it looks like you R belong to them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461237</id>
	<title>AV-Test Deems Windows Security Essentials ...</title>
	<author>xjlm</author>
	<datestamp>1245850920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>( I just couldn't bring myself to finish the title) Wonder how they'll cripple this one? "For only $99/month, your computer can be covered, too!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I just could n't bring myself to finish the title ) Wonder how they 'll cripple this one ?
" For only $ 99/month , your computer can be covered , too !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>( I just couldn't bring myself to finish the title) Wonder how they'll cripple this one?
"For only $99/month, your computer can be covered, too!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460427</id>
	<title>Windows Defender?</title>
	<author>Degro</author>
	<datestamp>1245845820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what is the difference between this and the Windows Defender that comes with Vista? I don't trust any of these AV companies and haven't run their software in over a decade with no real problems. I do however let Windows Defender do whatever it does since upgrading to Vista. I never really looked into what that doing actually is though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is the difference between this and the Windows Defender that comes with Vista ?
I do n't trust any of these AV companies and have n't run their software in over a decade with no real problems .
I do however let Windows Defender do whatever it does since upgrading to Vista .
I never really looked into what that doing actually is though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is the difference between this and the Windows Defender that comes with Vista?
I don't trust any of these AV companies and haven't run their software in over a decade with no real problems.
I do however let Windows Defender do whatever it does since upgrading to Vista.
I never really looked into what that doing actually is though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460305</id>
	<title>Only protection against files?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245845220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,'</p><p>Aren't there other attacks besides file-based ?? This sounds rather silly!</p><p>Stephan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,'Are n't there other attacks besides file-based ? ?
This sounds rather silly ! Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,'Aren't there other attacks besides file-based ??
This sounds rather silly!Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460187</id>
	<title>It seems wrong for an OS vendor/maker to do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245844740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft should not be making antivirus software.  It should be fixing its vulnerabilities.</p><p>The OS has many fundamental problems, some of which cannot be resolved without redesigning the core internals which would render all older software incompatible any newer version of the OS.  This sort of problem was identified long ago, but it was decided that the cost of change would be too great, the burden on third party software vendors too heavy and ultimately, it would be too slow to adopt and migrate for all users.  And the longer they wait for this eventuality, the more expensive and prohibitive it becomes to make such important changes.</p><p>If this sounds like the U.S. moving from Imperial measurements to the globally accepted Metric system, you wouldn't be alone in this observation.</p><p>Microsoft still cannot fix the "stupid user" problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it.  And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything.  But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system doesn't stop here.  Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the "imperial" one behind... well I can dream can't I?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft should not be making antivirus software .
It should be fixing its vulnerabilities.The OS has many fundamental problems , some of which can not be resolved without redesigning the core internals which would render all older software incompatible any newer version of the OS .
This sort of problem was identified long ago , but it was decided that the cost of change would be too great , the burden on third party software vendors too heavy and ultimately , it would be too slow to adopt and migrate for all users .
And the longer they wait for this eventuality , the more expensive and prohibitive it becomes to make such important changes.If this sounds like the U.S. moving from Imperial measurements to the globally accepted Metric system , you would n't be alone in this observation.Microsoft still can not fix the " stupid user " problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it .
And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze 's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything .
But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system does n't stop here .
Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the " imperial " one behind... well I can dream ca n't I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft should not be making antivirus software.
It should be fixing its vulnerabilities.The OS has many fundamental problems, some of which cannot be resolved without redesigning the core internals which would render all older software incompatible any newer version of the OS.
This sort of problem was identified long ago, but it was decided that the cost of change would be too great, the burden on third party software vendors too heavy and ultimately, it would be too slow to adopt and migrate for all users.
And the longer they wait for this eventuality, the more expensive and prohibitive it becomes to make such important changes.If this sounds like the U.S. moving from Imperial measurements to the globally accepted Metric system, you wouldn't be alone in this observation.Microsoft still cannot fix the "stupid user" problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it.
And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything.
But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system doesn't stop here.
Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the "imperial" one behind... well I can dream can't I?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463019</id>
	<title>Re:Beta not available for download</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1245867120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you weren't so eager to install software provided by random slashdotters, perhaps you wouldn't need the beta...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were n't so eager to install software provided by random slashdotters , perhaps you would n't need the beta.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you weren't so eager to install software provided by random slashdotters, perhaps you wouldn't need the beta...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460913</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Defender?</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1245848580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is anti-virus as well as anti-malware. It supercedes windows defender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is anti-virus as well as anti-malware .
It supercedes windows defender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is anti-virus as well as anti-malware.
It supercedes windows defender.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464083</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds positive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245923160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running it happily in South Africa... you get to choose which country you're in before downloading it, and they don't verify your choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running it happily in South Africa... you get to choose which country you 're in before downloading it , and they do n't verify your choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running it happily in South Africa... you get to choose which country you're in before downloading it, and they don't verify your choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463741</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds positive</title>
	<author>pacinpm</author>
	<datestamp>1245962160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I downloaded it from Poland. The only problem was register page. It's headers were in Polish but content in Dutch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I downloaded it from Poland .
The only problem was register page .
It 's headers were in Polish but content in Dutch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I downloaded it from Poland.
The only problem was register page.
It's headers were in Polish but content in Dutch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461157</id>
	<title>Deems Windows Security Essentials "Very Good"</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1245850380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compared to what, exactly?  Compared to Unix? Or Apple?  Or, maybe even Linux?  Maybe Solaris?</p><p>"Microsoft Security Essentials makes the grade"</p><p>What exactly is the grade?  I just can't help scratching my head everytime I hear about Microsoft security.  All of these security applications are only necessary because Windows is insecure to start with.</p><p>I suppose that if I only had mud sandwiches to eat, if someone came by and put some salt and pepper in my mud, I might say it was "very good".</p><p>Am I the only person on earth who resents the fact that staying "secure" means devoting up to 30\% of my processor time on an older computer to scan files?  Preposterous.</p><p>Oh well.  Microsoft has so little to brag about, I guess that half-way plugging a hole of their own making is the best thing they can come up with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to what , exactly ?
Compared to Unix ?
Or Apple ?
Or , maybe even Linux ?
Maybe Solaris ?
" Microsoft Security Essentials makes the grade " What exactly is the grade ?
I just ca n't help scratching my head everytime I hear about Microsoft security .
All of these security applications are only necessary because Windows is insecure to start with.I suppose that if I only had mud sandwiches to eat , if someone came by and put some salt and pepper in my mud , I might say it was " very good " .Am I the only person on earth who resents the fact that staying " secure " means devoting up to 30 \ % of my processor time on an older computer to scan files ?
Preposterous.Oh well .
Microsoft has so little to brag about , I guess that half-way plugging a hole of their own making is the best thing they can come up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to what, exactly?
Compared to Unix?
Or Apple?
Or, maybe even Linux?
Maybe Solaris?
"Microsoft Security Essentials makes the grade"What exactly is the grade?
I just can't help scratching my head everytime I hear about Microsoft security.
All of these security applications are only necessary because Windows is insecure to start with.I suppose that if I only had mud sandwiches to eat, if someone came by and put some salt and pepper in my mud, I might say it was "very good".Am I the only person on earth who resents the fact that staying "secure" means devoting up to 30\% of my processor time on an older computer to scan files?
Preposterous.Oh well.
Microsoft has so little to brag about, I guess that half-way plugging a hole of their own making is the best thing they can come up with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28470431</id>
	<title>Re:It seems wrong for an OS vendor/maker to do thi</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1245960960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft can fix vulnerabilities, bugs, and provide security tools.  They aren't mutually exclusive.  Why shouldn't they be providing security/malware tools?  There are known malware problems and since they can't fix the "stupid user" problem, as you call it, then providing anti-malware tools makes sense doesn't it?</p><p>Microsoft has implemented an elevated privilege system in UAC.  You can require permision, passwords, or allow automated elevation depending on settings.  It sounds like Microsoft is making improvements.   This is a case of Microsoft actually doing the right thing and people just don't like that.  It's harder to bash someone when they do the right thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft can fix vulnerabilities , bugs , and provide security tools .
They are n't mutually exclusive .
Why should n't they be providing security/malware tools ?
There are known malware problems and since they ca n't fix the " stupid user " problem , as you call it , then providing anti-malware tools makes sense does n't it ? Microsoft has implemented an elevated privilege system in UAC .
You can require permision , passwords , or allow automated elevation depending on settings .
It sounds like Microsoft is making improvements .
This is a case of Microsoft actually doing the right thing and people just do n't like that .
It 's harder to bash someone when they do the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft can fix vulnerabilities, bugs, and provide security tools.
They aren't mutually exclusive.
Why shouldn't they be providing security/malware tools?
There are known malware problems and since they can't fix the "stupid user" problem, as you call it, then providing anti-malware tools makes sense doesn't it?Microsoft has implemented an elevated privilege system in UAC.
You can require permision, passwords, or allow automated elevation depending on settings.
It sounds like Microsoft is making improvements.
This is a case of Microsoft actually doing the right thing and people just don't like that.
It's harder to bash someone when they do the right thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461367</id>
	<title>Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245852000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's interesting, but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product?</i> </p><p>Microsoft is strongly positioned as a client OS. On the server. In core business applications. In development tools. In console gaming....</p><p>In software software sales, MS Office is bigger than games.</p><p> Bigger than anything. It is the tail that wags the dog. The 900 pound gorilla. Choose whatever metaphor you like.</p><p>The Win 7 Beta opened to rock-solid reviews and has effortlessly claimed about half the market share of Linux on the desktop. <a href="http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10" title="hitslink.com">Operating System Market Share</a> [hitslink.com] </p><p>The geek knows all of this intellectually, but he can't process it emotionally. It is easier to live within the bubble.</p><p><i>I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.</i> </p><p>Windows Firewall wasn't designed for the techie.</p><p> It was designed for the user relentlessly nagged by requests to approve outbound access for the obscure subroutines of programs that already have his permission to access the net.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting , but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product ?
Microsoft is strongly positioned as a client OS .
On the server .
In core business applications .
In development tools .
In console gaming....In software software sales , MS Office is bigger than games .
Bigger than anything .
It is the tail that wags the dog .
The 900 pound gorilla .
Choose whatever metaphor you like.The Win 7 Beta opened to rock-solid reviews and has effortlessly claimed about half the market share of Linux on the desktop .
Operating System Market Share [ hitslink.com ] The geek knows all of this intellectually , but he ca n't process it emotionally .
It is easier to live within the bubble.I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too , yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days .
Windows Firewall was n't designed for the techie .
It was designed for the user relentlessly nagged by requests to approve outbound access for the obscure subroutines of programs that already have his permission to access the net .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting, but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product?
Microsoft is strongly positioned as a client OS.
On the server.
In core business applications.
In development tools.
In console gaming....In software software sales, MS Office is bigger than games.
Bigger than anything.
It is the tail that wags the dog.
The 900 pound gorilla.
Choose whatever metaphor you like.The Win 7 Beta opened to rock-solid reviews and has effortlessly claimed about half the market share of Linux on the desktop.
Operating System Market Share [hitslink.com] The geek knows all of this intellectually, but he can't process it emotionally.
It is easier to live within the bubble.I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.
Windows Firewall wasn't designed for the techie.
It was designed for the user relentlessly nagged by requests to approve outbound access for the obscure subroutines of programs that already have his permission to access the net.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461183</id>
	<title>AV-Test better than VB100 and Checkmark</title>
	<author>Rsriram</author>
	<datestamp>1245850560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AV-Test uses a really large sample size for testing against real viruses. Unlike VB100 or Checkmark that focus on a sample size of around 1000 to check "in-the-wild" viruses.</p><p>To be fair, in-the-wild viruses cause about 98\% of the attacks and AV organizations catching them have demonstrated their capability of catching the others.</p><p>AV companies catch viruses a few hours to few days after a virus has been released. So, even the best AV company cannot save you from getting infected by that brand new virus which has been released just a few minutes ago.</p><p>When a lay user is also the administrator on a system, they can inadvertently install/click on exe files and answer yes to threatening questions about security. For a really secure OS, the user needs to be upgraded to an administrator, preferably a NetBSD admin. But then who would do the rest of the work in the world!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AV-Test uses a really large sample size for testing against real viruses .
Unlike VB100 or Checkmark that focus on a sample size of around 1000 to check " in-the-wild " viruses.To be fair , in-the-wild viruses cause about 98 \ % of the attacks and AV organizations catching them have demonstrated their capability of catching the others.AV companies catch viruses a few hours to few days after a virus has been released .
So , even the best AV company can not save you from getting infected by that brand new virus which has been released just a few minutes ago.When a lay user is also the administrator on a system , they can inadvertently install/click on exe files and answer yes to threatening questions about security .
For a really secure OS , the user needs to be upgraded to an administrator , preferably a NetBSD admin .
But then who would do the rest of the work in the world !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AV-Test uses a really large sample size for testing against real viruses.
Unlike VB100 or Checkmark that focus on a sample size of around 1000 to check "in-the-wild" viruses.To be fair, in-the-wild viruses cause about 98\% of the attacks and AV organizations catching them have demonstrated their capability of catching the others.AV companies catch viruses a few hours to few days after a virus has been released.
So, even the best AV company cannot save you from getting infected by that brand new virus which has been released just a few minutes ago.When a lay user is also the administrator on a system, they can inadvertently install/click on exe files and answer yes to threatening questions about security.
For a really secure OS, the user needs to be upgraded to an administrator, preferably a NetBSD admin.
But then who would do the rest of the work in the world!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466923</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1245947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, it is not fixing their broken OS.  The OS remains broken and now they will try to capitalize off that and make more money off the illusion of protecting their broken OS.</p><p>Are you a retard or a MS apologist? . . . .<br>Oh ok... Thought so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , it is not fixing their broken OS .
The OS remains broken and now they will try to capitalize off that and make more money off the illusion of protecting their broken OS.Are you a retard or a MS apologist ?
. .
. .Oh ok... Thought so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, it is not fixing their broken OS.
The OS remains broken and now they will try to capitalize off that and make more money off the illusion of protecting their broken OS.Are you a retard or a MS apologist?
. .
. .Oh ok... Thought so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</id>
	<title>I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245841560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Norton, Symantec and others have created an entire multi-billion dollar subscription based industry around virus protection for Windows. I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Norton , Symantec and others have created an entire multi-billion dollar subscription based industry around virus protection for Windows .
I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Norton, Symantec and others have created an entire multi-billion dollar subscription based industry around virus protection for Windows.
I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds positive</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1245850200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they still think the US and it's friends are the whole world:</p><p>From the download site:<br>Not available in your country or region</p><p>You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.</p><p>This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they still think the US and it 's friends are the whole world : From the download site : Not available in your country or regionYou appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.This beta is available only to customers in the United States , Israel ( English only ) , People 's Republic of China ( Simplified Chinese only ) and Brazil ( Brazilian Portuguese only ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they still think the US and it's friends are the whole world:From the download site:Not available in your country or regionYou appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464521</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1245929640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, since I can't get Norton to work on my 64-bit Vista (a platform that is three years old) I think they haven't really got a leg to stand on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since I ca n't get Norton to work on my 64-bit Vista ( a platform that is three years old ) I think they have n't really got a leg to stand on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since I can't get Norton to work on my 64-bit Vista (a platform that is three years old) I think they haven't really got a leg to stand on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28489371</id>
	<title>Re:directed self-interest</title>
	<author>InsertCleverUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1246016640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes. It creates a lot of extra work.</p></div><p>I am intrigued by your offer to provide Linux support desk services for my aging parents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes .
It creates a lot of extra work.I am intrigued by your offer to provide Linux support desk services for my aging parents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes.
It creates a lot of extra work.I am intrigued by your offer to provide Linux support desk services for my aging parents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461173</id>
	<title>Virus Bulletin</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1245850440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't see anything from the VB100 list yet.


<a href="http://www.virusbtn.com/index" title="virusbtn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.virusbtn.com/index</a> [virusbtn.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't see anything from the VB100 list yet .
http : //www.virusbtn.com/index [ virusbtn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't see anything from the VB100 list yet.
http://www.virusbtn.com/index [virusbtn.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459555</id>
	<title>Scan your willy for viruses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245841440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds.</p><p>Willy on Wheels (J.delanoy)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds.Willy on Wheels ( J.delanoy ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds.Willy on Wheels (J.delanoy)!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460547</id>
	<title>Re:It makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245846360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For example, compare the number of system calls in the windows kernel with the number in the Linux kernel.</i></p><p>Where would I get data to compare these two items? I see from Wikipedia that Linux has around 320.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , compare the number of system calls in the windows kernel with the number in the Linux kernel.Where would I get data to compare these two items ?
I see from Wikipedia that Linux has around 320 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, compare the number of system calls in the windows kernel with the number in the Linux kernel.Where would I get data to compare these two items?
I see from Wikipedia that Linux has around 320.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28467817</id>
	<title>Re:Malware?</title>
	<author>JTSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1245951240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>viruses, trojans, and worms, are all nice and dandy but what about malware? That is what most people have to worry about these days.</p></div><p>Do not make remarks about stuff you do not know what you're talking about. Malware by its very definition is malicious software. Therefore, Viruses, Trojans and Worms are all malware. How did you even score a 4, insightful for your post?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>viruses , trojans , and worms , are all nice and dandy but what about malware ?
That is what most people have to worry about these days.Do not make remarks about stuff you do not know what you 're talking about .
Malware by its very definition is malicious software .
Therefore , Viruses , Trojans and Worms are all malware .
How did you even score a 4 , insightful for your post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>viruses, trojans, and worms, are all nice and dandy but what about malware?
That is what most people have to worry about these days.Do not make remarks about stuff you do not know what you're talking about.
Malware by its very definition is malicious software.
Therefore, Viruses, Trojans and Worms are all malware.
How did you even score a 4, insightful for your post?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461025</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust?</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1245849420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering those antivirus companies' entire business model depends largely on flaws in a single product line of another company does it really matter if they go out of business? They're parasites on a monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering those antivirus companies ' entire business model depends largely on flaws in a single product line of another company does it really matter if they go out of business ?
They 're parasites on a monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering those antivirus companies' entire business model depends largely on flaws in a single product line of another company does it really matter if they go out of business?
They're parasites on a monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464581</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245930780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This happened before about 15 years ago with MSAV.  Microsoft bundled an antivirus tool with MS-DOS 6.22.  Like now, people were saying that this was a monopoly, and that McAfee, Symantec, and all the major AV makers would be put out of business.</p><p>Didn't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This happened before about 15 years ago with MSAV .
Microsoft bundled an antivirus tool with MS-DOS 6.22 .
Like now , people were saying that this was a monopoly , and that McAfee , Symantec , and all the major AV makers would be put out of business.Did n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happened before about 15 years ago with MSAV.
Microsoft bundled an antivirus tool with MS-DOS 6.22.
Like now, people were saying that this was a monopoly, and that McAfee, Symantec, and all the major AV makers would be put out of business.Didn't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611</id>
	<title>Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245841680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting, but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product? I think that is there biggest problem here... PR.j  I will admit I laughed when I saw the article, and it is Microsoft's reputation that made me laugh.  Maybe it is good, but I am I really willing to give them the chance with something that important?</p><p>I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.</p><p>Let's face it.  If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these "core" activities, would the 3rd party market be as big as it is?</p><p>In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed.  Then maybe the manufacturers won't be so quick to bundle Norton/McAffee with their products, and THAT will be fun to watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting , but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product ?
I think that is there biggest problem here... PR.j I will admit I laughed when I saw the article , and it is Microsoft 's reputation that made me laugh .
Maybe it is good , but I am I really willing to give them the chance with something that important ? I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too , yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.Let 's face it .
If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these " core " activities , would the 3rd party market be as big as it is ? In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed .
Then maybe the manufacturers wo n't be so quick to bundle Norton/McAffee with their products , and THAT will be fun to watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting, but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product?
I think that is there biggest problem here... PR.j  I will admit I laughed when I saw the article, and it is Microsoft's reputation that made me laugh.
Maybe it is good, but I am I really willing to give them the chance with something that important?I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.Let's face it.
If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these "core" activities, would the 3rd party market be as big as it is?In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed.
Then maybe the manufacturers won't be so quick to bundle Norton/McAffee with their products, and THAT will be fun to watch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459887</id>
	<title>Beta not available for download</title>
	<author>planckscale</author>
	<datestamp>1245843120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just tried to download from Microsoft here:
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security\_essentials/" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/security\_essentials/</a> [microsoft.com] <p>
But found the following message:</p><p>
Alert!</p><p>
Thank you for your interest in joining the Microsoft&#194;&#174; Security Essentials Beta. We are not accepting additional participants at this time. Please check back at later a date for possible additional availability.</p><p>
Anyone know where to get a copy of the beta? I'd like to put it on a machine I just built.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just tried to download from Microsoft here : http : //www.microsoft.com/security \ _essentials/ [ microsoft.com ] But found the following message : Alert !
Thank you for your interest in joining the Microsoft     Security Essentials Beta .
We are not accepting additional participants at this time .
Please check back at later a date for possible additional availability .
Anyone know where to get a copy of the beta ?
I 'd like to put it on a machine I just built .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just tried to download from Microsoft here:
http://www.microsoft.com/security\_essentials/ [microsoft.com] 
But found the following message:
Alert!
Thank you for your interest in joining the MicrosoftÂ® Security Essentials Beta.
We are not accepting additional participants at this time.
Please check back at later a date for possible additional availability.
Anyone know where to get a copy of the beta?
I'd like to put it on a machine I just built.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460035</id>
	<title>Re:Probably Pretty Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245843960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>By all means, enjoy your Macbook.  Feel free to twitter about your seething discomfort with the fact that MS may have done something quite well for once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By all means , enjoy your Macbook .
Feel free to twitter about your seething discomfort with the fact that MS may have done something quite well for once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By all means, enjoy your Macbook.
Feel free to twitter about your seething discomfort with the fact that MS may have done something quite well for once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460963</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245848820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, MS does have a consistent, long-running history. A serial killer who buys an ice cream for a little girl is still a serial killer. One good deed does not blank out a lifetime of ugliness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , MS does have a consistent , long-running history .
A serial killer who buys an ice cream for a little girl is still a serial killer .
One good deed does not blank out a lifetime of ugliness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, MS does have a consistent, long-running history.
A serial killer who buys an ice cream for a little girl is still a serial killer.
One good deed does not blank out a lifetime of ugliness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462015</id>
	<title>Re:The question is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with the spirit of the question (i.e. fix the vulnerabilities), but the simple fact is that you just can't do a God damn thing to prevent the user from running malicious code.  You can give them all kinds of warnings, but at the end of the day they can still choose to ignore them.  Don't get me wrong; stopping the automatic proliferation of viruses is certainly a worthwhile venture.  But asking for anything more than that is a fool's errand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the spirit of the question ( i.e .
fix the vulnerabilities ) , but the simple fact is that you just ca n't do a God damn thing to prevent the user from running malicious code .
You can give them all kinds of warnings , but at the end of the day they can still choose to ignore them .
Do n't get me wrong ; stopping the automatic proliferation of viruses is certainly a worthwhile venture .
But asking for anything more than that is a fool 's errand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the spirit of the question (i.e.
fix the vulnerabilities), but the simple fact is that you just can't do a God damn thing to prevent the user from running malicious code.
You can give them all kinds of warnings, but at the end of the day they can still choose to ignore them.
Don't get me wrong; stopping the automatic proliferation of viruses is certainly a worthwhile venture.
But asking for anything more than that is a fool's errand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28469669</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1245958140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a really interesting question.  I've been wondering this myself.</p><p>I've been testing the Win 7 beta and RC.  Along with that I've been testing several security solutions.  Of all the major vendors promoting full security suites Symantec seems to have the least intrusive low overhead solution in NIS2009 or N360.  Of the AV only solutions I like Panda AV the best.  It was similarly hassle free and easy to use.  Microsoft Security Essentials, along with Windows Defender, firewall, backup, and defrag supply all the same functionality and are easy to use.</p><p>Several vendors are trying to sell not just security but centralized system management in the form of firewall, anti-malware, performance tools (disk defrag and registry defrag), and an automated backup solution (some offering online storage on their site).  The problem I see here is that the Windows now provides a firewall, Windows Defender, and now MS Security Essentials for free.  Windows 7 has a backup utility that, while fairly rudimentary, is good enough. The complete solutions I tried used the Windows 7 disk defrag tool and just scheduled it for you.  In the end the only people are just paying for a fancy registry defragger and possibly some online storage.  The third party vendors do provide all this in a centralized management console, but that's about all they have to offer.  The new Windows Action Center provides easy access to all those tools as well just packaged in a more spartan interface.</p><p>I think it will be interesting to see how security vendors and software evolve from this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a really interesting question .
I 've been wondering this myself.I 've been testing the Win 7 beta and RC .
Along with that I 've been testing several security solutions .
Of all the major vendors promoting full security suites Symantec seems to have the least intrusive low overhead solution in NIS2009 or N360 .
Of the AV only solutions I like Panda AV the best .
It was similarly hassle free and easy to use .
Microsoft Security Essentials , along with Windows Defender , firewall , backup , and defrag supply all the same functionality and are easy to use.Several vendors are trying to sell not just security but centralized system management in the form of firewall , anti-malware , performance tools ( disk defrag and registry defrag ) , and an automated backup solution ( some offering online storage on their site ) .
The problem I see here is that the Windows now provides a firewall , Windows Defender , and now MS Security Essentials for free .
Windows 7 has a backup utility that , while fairly rudimentary , is good enough .
The complete solutions I tried used the Windows 7 disk defrag tool and just scheduled it for you .
In the end the only people are just paying for a fancy registry defragger and possibly some online storage .
The third party vendors do provide all this in a centralized management console , but that 's about all they have to offer .
The new Windows Action Center provides easy access to all those tools as well just packaged in a more spartan interface.I think it will be interesting to see how security vendors and software evolve from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a really interesting question.
I've been wondering this myself.I've been testing the Win 7 beta and RC.
Along with that I've been testing several security solutions.
Of all the major vendors promoting full security suites Symantec seems to have the least intrusive low overhead solution in NIS2009 or N360.
Of the AV only solutions I like Panda AV the best.
It was similarly hassle free and easy to use.
Microsoft Security Essentials, along with Windows Defender, firewall, backup, and defrag supply all the same functionality and are easy to use.Several vendors are trying to sell not just security but centralized system management in the form of firewall, anti-malware, performance tools (disk defrag and registry defrag), and an automated backup solution (some offering online storage on their site).
The problem I see here is that the Windows now provides a firewall, Windows Defender, and now MS Security Essentials for free.
Windows 7 has a backup utility that, while fairly rudimentary, is good enough.
The complete solutions I tried used the Windows 7 disk defrag tool and just scheduled it for you.
In the end the only people are just paying for a fancy registry defragger and possibly some online storage.
The third party vendors do provide all this in a centralized management console, but that's about all they have to offer.
The new Windows Action Center provides easy access to all those tools as well just packaged in a more spartan interface.I think it will be interesting to see how security vendors and software evolve from this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460173</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>edivad</author>
	<datestamp>1245844680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Norton, Symantec and others have created an entire multi-billion dollar subscription based industry around virus protection for Windows. I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?</p></div><p>React? You mean, they should feel threatened by the same noOneCare technology that so miserably failed to make any business because of its design flaws?<br>
I can already see everyone in the business running scared about this new thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Norton , Symantec and others have created an entire multi-billion dollar subscription based industry around virus protection for Windows .
I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model ? React ?
You mean , they should feel threatened by the same noOneCare technology that so miserably failed to make any business because of its design flaws ?
I can already see everyone in the business running scared about this new thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Norton, Symantec and others have created an entire multi-billion dollar subscription based industry around virus protection for Windows.
I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?React?
You mean, they should feel threatened by the same noOneCare technology that so miserably failed to make any business because of its design flaws?
I can already see everyone in the business running scared about this new thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461419</id>
	<title>system performance?</title>
	<author>Satanboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245852540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone tried this out yet to see what the performance hit is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone tried this out yet to see what the performance hit is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone tried this out yet to see what the performance hit is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463807</id>
	<title>Re:Malware?</title>
	<author>trifish</author>
	<datestamp>1245963000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; viruses, trojans, and worms, are all nice and dandy but what about malware?</p><p>Actually, malware is a universal term collectively referring to viruses, trojans, worms, rootkits, and spyware. In other words, malware is any kind of malicious software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; viruses , trojans , and worms , are all nice and dandy but what about malware ? Actually , malware is a universal term collectively referring to viruses , trojans , worms , rootkits , and spyware .
In other words , malware is any kind of malicious software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; viruses, trojans, and worms, are all nice and dandy but what about malware?Actually, malware is a universal term collectively referring to viruses, trojans, worms, rootkits, and spyware.
In other words, malware is any kind of malicious software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28467219</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to howl!</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245948960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the geek would be the first to howl if he could only install the apps approved [by Apple]</p></div><p>I just had a look at a demo iPhone today.  One of the top 25 apps in the store shows scantily clad women.  The app description says "they're as naked as Apple will let us make them".</p><p>Oh, Apple gets to censor my mobile porn.  Screw that, then.  Hello, Android-running HTC Magic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the geek would be the first to howl if he could only install the apps approved [ by Apple ] I just had a look at a demo iPhone today .
One of the top 25 apps in the store shows scantily clad women .
The app description says " they 're as naked as Apple will let us make them " .Oh , Apple gets to censor my mobile porn .
Screw that , then .
Hello , Android-running HTC Magic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the geek would be the first to howl if he could only install the apps approved [by Apple]I just had a look at a demo iPhone today.
One of the top 25 apps in the store shows scantily clad women.
The app description says "they're as naked as Apple will let us make them".Oh, Apple gets to censor my mobile porn.
Screw that, then.
Hello, Android-running HTC Magic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28467099</id>
	<title>Anti-malware isn't only anti-windows-holes</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245948480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>claim anti-trust and attempt to sue.</p><p>How dare microsoft plug security holes themselves.</p></div><p>Well, strictly speaking, the anti-malware vendors still have a market if people run non-MS software, such as firefox, VLC, OpenOffice and others.  If MS fixes their own holes, it might shrink the anti-malware market, but isn't that just "the cost of progress", just like cars shrunk the market for horse shoes?</p><p>I'm not the one to frivolously defend Microsoft, but here I think there's an argument which at least needs a counter-argument before a suit about anticompetitive behavior can be won.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>claim anti-trust and attempt to sue.How dare microsoft plug security holes themselves.Well , strictly speaking , the anti-malware vendors still have a market if people run non-MS software , such as firefox , VLC , OpenOffice and others .
If MS fixes their own holes , it might shrink the anti-malware market , but is n't that just " the cost of progress " , just like cars shrunk the market for horse shoes ? I 'm not the one to frivolously defend Microsoft , but here I think there 's an argument which at least needs a counter-argument before a suit about anticompetitive behavior can be won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>claim anti-trust and attempt to sue.How dare microsoft plug security holes themselves.Well, strictly speaking, the anti-malware vendors still have a market if people run non-MS software, such as firefox, VLC, OpenOffice and others.
If MS fixes their own holes, it might shrink the anti-malware market, but isn't that just "the cost of progress", just like cars shrunk the market for horse shoes?I'm not the one to frivolously defend Microsoft, but here I think there's an argument which at least needs a counter-argument before a suit about anticompetitive behavior can be won.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553</id>
	<title>Sounds positive</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1245841440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS is lifting their game.exe</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS is lifting their game.exe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS is lifting their game.exe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461621</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>morghanphoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1245854220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, MS will only offer this for free until they've killed their competition, then they'll take over that subscription market and get all the money Norton &amp; Symantec were raking in before they decided to smother their competition. Is there any other reason MS does a decent job of something? Once they've killed off their competitors it's back to the joke these types of products once were, after all, why try when you're the only game in town?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , MS will only offer this for free until they 've killed their competition , then they 'll take over that subscription market and get all the money Norton &amp; Symantec were raking in before they decided to smother their competition .
Is there any other reason MS does a decent job of something ?
Once they 've killed off their competitors it 's back to the joke these types of products once were , after all , why try when you 're the only game in town ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, MS will only offer this for free until they've killed their competition, then they'll take over that subscription market and get all the money Norton &amp; Symantec were raking in before they decided to smother their competition.
Is there any other reason MS does a decent job of something?
Once they've killed off their competitors it's back to the joke these types of products once were, after all, why try when you're the only game in town?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459665</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245841980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>claim anti-trust and attempt to sue.</p><p>How dare microsoft plug security holes themselves.</p><p>Come on EU, save us from a secure windows platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>claim anti-trust and attempt to sue.How dare microsoft plug security holes themselves.Come on EU , save us from a secure windows platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>claim anti-trust and attempt to sue.How dare microsoft plug security holes themselves.Come on EU, save us from a secure windows platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464705</id>
	<title>Re:Malware?</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1245933000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're just cringing at the fact that Microsoft did something right, and are looking for any reason to bash them. This is Slashdot however, and everyone is supposed to be a Microsoft cynic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're just cringing at the fact that Microsoft did something right , and are looking for any reason to bash them .
This is Slashdot however , and everyone is supposed to be a Microsoft cynic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're just cringing at the fact that Microsoft did something right, and are looking for any reason to bash them.
This is Slashdot however, and everyone is supposed to be a Microsoft cynic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460399</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28494479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28469669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28470431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28489371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28467817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28469017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28467219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28467099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_216231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28467219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460135
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28467099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463747
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28469669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28489371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28494479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466275
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28467817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28464705
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28477235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28465525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28469017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28463297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28460945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28470431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28462015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28466287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_216231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28459711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_216231.28461111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
