<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_04_1121255</id>
	<title>Symantec Exec Warns Against Relying On Free Antivirus</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246714140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>thefickler writes <i>"Clearly, the rise of free antivirus is starting to worry Symantec, with one of their top executives <a href="http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:\%20/2009/07/04/symantec-its-dangerous-to-rely-on-free-antivirus/">warning consumers not to rely on free antivirus software</a> (including <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/216231/AV-Test-Deems-Windows-Security-Essentials-Very-Good">Microsoft's Security Essentials</a>). 'If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft,' said David Hall, a Product Manager for Symantec. According to Hall, there is a widening gap between people's understanding of what protection they need and the threats they're actually facing."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>thefickler writes " Clearly , the rise of free antivirus is starting to worry Symantec , with one of their top executives warning consumers not to rely on free antivirus software ( including Microsoft 's Security Essentials ) .
'If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age , you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft, ' said David Hall , a Product Manager for Symantec .
According to Hall , there is a widening gap between people 's understanding of what protection they need and the threats they 're actually facing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thefickler writes "Clearly, the rise of free antivirus is starting to worry Symantec, with one of their top executives warning consumers not to rely on free antivirus software (including Microsoft's Security Essentials).
'If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft,' said David Hall, a Product Manager for Symantec.
According to Hall, there is a widening gap between people's understanding of what protection they need and the threats they're actually facing.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28598975</id>
	<title>NASDAQ 99.999\% uptime evidences inside... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above, &amp; this data:</p><p><a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+\%2299.999\%22+and+\%22NASDAQ\%22+and+\%22Ken+Richmond\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+\%2299.999\%22+and+\%22NASDAQ\%22+and+\%22Ken+Richmond\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132]</p><p><b>NASDAQ</b></p><p>Spokesperson: <b>Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering</b></p><p>Situation:</p><p>Largest U.S. electronic stock market<br>Replacing aging Tandem systems<br>Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing</p><p><b>Solution:</b></p><p><b>MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System</b> (composed of Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005)<br>5K txs/second, 100K queries/day<br>Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability</p><p><b>Benefits:</b></p><p><b>Enterprise availability</b><br>Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day<br>Lower total cost of ownership<br>Real-time reporting<br>Developer agility</p><p><b>KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less</b> (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY) here:</p><p><b>WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE</b> (which lists 99.999\% no less) -&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High\_availability" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High\_availability</a> [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Need more?</p><p><b>"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions</b> (from various sources):</p><p>"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999\% availability)" -&gt; <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219" title="linkedin.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219</a> [linkedin.com]</p><p>"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999\% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -&gt; <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm\%3Fid\%3D7369+\%22Enterprise+Availability\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm\%3Fid\%3D7369+\%22Enterprise+Availability\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132]</p><p>----</p><p>"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked <b>perfectly</b> for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.</p><p>FROM -&gt; <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271</a> [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]</p><p><b>As far as the word "PERFECT"?</b></p><p><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect" title="merriam-webster.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect</a> [merriam-webster.com] [merriam-webster.com] [merriam-webster.com]</p><p>perfect</p><p>Main Entry:</p><p><b>1perfect</b></p><p><b>1 a: being entirely without fault or defect</b></p><p>----</p><p><b>The terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY? They BOTH equate to 99.999\% uptime</b> (the "Fabled '5-9's'" , of uptime)... period!</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Enjoy... the proof's all here, as well as in my other postings on this subject, &amp; completely legitimate + verifiable... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above , &amp; this data : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : 7u5zusUtjUIJ : https : //thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx + \ % 2299.999 \ % 22 + and + \ % 22NASDAQ \ % 22 + and + \ % 22Ken + Richmond \ % 22&amp;cd = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] NASDAQSpokesperson : Ken Richmond , Vice President of Software EngineeringSituation : Largest U.S. electronic stock marketReplacing aging Tandem systemsWanted to update system for real-time trade summary , risk management and broker clearingSolution : MDDS : Market Data Dissemination System ( composed of Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 ) 5K txs/second , 100K queries/dayRunning on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availabilityBenefits : Enterprise availabilityScalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per dayLower total cost of ownershipReal-time reportingDeveloper agilityKEYWORD , LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS , is " Enterprise Availability " , by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less ( who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY ) here : WIKIPEDIA " HIGH AVAILABILITY " DEFINITION PAGE ( which lists 99.999 \ % no less ) - &gt; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High \ _availability [ wikipedia.org ] [ wikipedia.org ] [ wikipedia.org ] Need more ?
" ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY " / " HIGH AVAILABILITY " definitions ( from various sources ) : " for the high availability enterprise servers ( 99.999 \ % availability ) " - &gt; http : //www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219 [ linkedin.com ] " Device techniques for high availability For years , enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999 \ % availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver .
This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service .
If enterprise networks are to support IP phones , they too must deliver similar availability " - &gt; http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : kMTHFHnbIpwJ : www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm \ % 3Fid \ % 3D7369 + \ % 22Enterprise + Availability \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] ---- " We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data .
It has worked perfectly for us " - Ken Richmond , vice president for software engineering , market information systems at NASDAQ.FROM - &gt; http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 49271 [ microsoft.com ] [ microsoft.com ] As far as the word " PERFECT " ? http : //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect [ merriam-webster.com ] [ merriam-webster.com ] [ merriam-webster.com ] perfectMain Entry : 1perfect1 a : being entirely without fault or defect----The terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY ?
They BOTH equate to 99.999 \ % uptime ( the " Fabled '5-9 's ' " , of uptime ) ... period ! APKP.S. = &gt; Enjoy... the proof 's all here , as well as in my other postings on this subject , &amp; completely legitimate + verifiable... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above, &amp; this data:http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+\%2299.999\%22+and+\%22NASDAQ\%22+and+\%22Ken+Richmond\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132]NASDAQSpokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software EngineeringSituation:Largest U.S. electronic stock marketReplacing aging Tandem systemsWanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearingSolution:MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System (composed of Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005)5K txs/second, 100K queries/dayRunning on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availabilityBenefits:Enterprise availabilityScalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per dayLower total cost of ownershipReal-time reportingDeveloper agilityKEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY) here:WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999\% no less) -&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High\_availability [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999\% availability)" -&gt; http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219 [linkedin.com]"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999\% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver.
This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service.
If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -&gt; http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm\%3Fid\%3D7369+\%22Enterprise+Availability\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132]----"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data.
It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.FROM -&gt; http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271 [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]As far as the word "PERFECT"?http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect [merriam-webster.com] [merriam-webster.com] [merriam-webster.com]perfectMain Entry:1perfect1 a: being entirely without fault or defect----The terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY?
They BOTH equate to 99.999\% uptime (the "Fabled '5-9's'" , of uptime)... period!APKP.S.=&gt; Enjoy... the proof's all here, as well as in my other postings on this subject, &amp; completely legitimate + verifiable... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580853</id>
	<title>Some of the free ones are home only and they pro v</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1246729080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the free ones are home only and they have pro ver's as well that you can also use at home. Avast! is good and it works with vista 64 as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the free ones are home only and they have pro ver 's as well that you can also use at home .
Avast ! is good and it works with vista 64 as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the free ones are home only and they have pro ver's as well that you can also use at home.
Avast! is good and it works with vista 64 as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584801</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246736100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you're not holding Trend up as an example of "how to do it right"...</p><p>Having dealt with them as both a customer and partner, they are complete assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you 're not holding Trend up as an example of " how to do it right " ...Having dealt with them as both a customer and partner , they are complete assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you're not holding Trend up as an example of "how to do it right"...Having dealt with them as both a customer and partner, they are complete assholes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580207</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than Norton</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1246723320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spot on. I'll sign that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spot on .
I 'll sign that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spot on.
I'll sign that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580081</id>
	<title>Can someone explain to me?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1246722240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, despite all the problems, we continue to use Microsoft?</p><p>What feature of Windows makes it OK to spend millions getting rid of Conficker, as they did in Britian at the metro bus system?</p><p>What functionality makes it worth getting your life savings stolen by the Russian Mob, and then spending 5-6 years fighting with your bank to get it back?</p><p>For how many more years will we continue to use a product that can't make it through the day without someone else's helper-program?</p><p>Linux is \_complete\_, free, and maintained by people who give a damn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , despite all the problems , we continue to use Microsoft ? What feature of Windows makes it OK to spend millions getting rid of Conficker , as they did in Britian at the metro bus system ? What functionality makes it worth getting your life savings stolen by the Russian Mob , and then spending 5-6 years fighting with your bank to get it back ? For how many more years will we continue to use a product that ca n't make it through the day without someone else 's helper-program ? Linux is \ _complete \ _ , free , and maintained by people who give a damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, despite all the problems, we continue to use Microsoft?What feature of Windows makes it OK to spend millions getting rid of Conficker, as they did in Britian at the metro bus system?What functionality makes it worth getting your life savings stolen by the Russian Mob, and then spending 5-6 years fighting with your bank to get it back?For how many more years will we continue to use a product that can't make it through the day without someone else's helper-program?Linux is \_complete\_, free, and maintained by people who give a damn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580547</id>
	<title>Re:How do you get infected?</title>
	<author>thewils</author>
	<datestamp>1246726440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected.</p></div></blockquote><p>I've been using computers for 20 years and have never, to my knowledge, been infected.</p><p>There, fixed it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected.I 've been using computers for 20 years and have never , to my knowledge , been infected.There , fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected.I've been using computers for 20 years and have never, to my knowledge, been infected.There, fixed it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579769</id>
	<title>Everybody else warns against relying on Symantec!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246719060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just saying... From what I hear from pretty much everything and every test, is that they have the worst piece of shit of a useless resource hog with no detection rate in the whole industry, including free solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just saying... From what I hear from pretty much everything and every test , is that they have the worst piece of shit of a useless resource hog with no detection rate in the whole industry , including free solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just saying... From what I hear from pretty much everything and every test, is that they have the worst piece of shit of a useless resource hog with no detection rate in the whole industry, including free solutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582091</id>
	<title>My latest fiasco with commercial anti-virus ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1246740300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my clients bought a new Dell Inspiron notebook with an integrated Verizon cellular card.  He wound up needing my help getting the Verizon card set up, because every time he ran the Dell utility to manage the card, it just hour-glassed the PC for about 30 seconds, and finally returned an error message about being unable to connect to one of its components.</p><p>I fought and fought with it, checking to see if the cellular card might be disabled at the BIOS level, or if a Windows service was incorrectly set to "disabled" or something....  nope.</p><p>I finally gave up and called Dell tech support, to see if they knew anything about the issue.  The tech had no clue, other than suggesting steps I already tried, and seeing if I could launch the configuration program from the START menu, as opposed to from its system tray icon (same result).</p><p>Then, on a "shot in the dark" troubleshooting step, I did a full uninstall of the McAfee Security Suite provided with the machine (with 1 year subscription).  That did the trick!  McAfee was blocking the cellular card utility from launching, despite its firewall not even listing it as a blocked executable or anything!  Nice.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my clients bought a new Dell Inspiron notebook with an integrated Verizon cellular card .
He wound up needing my help getting the Verizon card set up , because every time he ran the Dell utility to manage the card , it just hour-glassed the PC for about 30 seconds , and finally returned an error message about being unable to connect to one of its components.I fought and fought with it , checking to see if the cellular card might be disabled at the BIOS level , or if a Windows service was incorrectly set to " disabled " or something.... nope.I finally gave up and called Dell tech support , to see if they knew anything about the issue .
The tech had no clue , other than suggesting steps I already tried , and seeing if I could launch the configuration program from the START menu , as opposed to from its system tray icon ( same result ) .Then , on a " shot in the dark " troubleshooting step , I did a full uninstall of the McAfee Security Suite provided with the machine ( with 1 year subscription ) .
That did the trick !
McAfee was blocking the cellular card utility from launching , despite its firewall not even listing it as a blocked executable or anything !
Nice.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my clients bought a new Dell Inspiron notebook with an integrated Verizon cellular card.
He wound up needing my help getting the Verizon card set up, because every time he ran the Dell utility to manage the card, it just hour-glassed the PC for about 30 seconds, and finally returned an error message about being unable to connect to one of its components.I fought and fought with it, checking to see if the cellular card might be disabled at the BIOS level, or if a Windows service was incorrectly set to "disabled" or something....  nope.I finally gave up and called Dell tech support, to see if they knew anything about the issue.
The tech had no clue, other than suggesting steps I already tried, and seeing if I could launch the configuration program from the START menu, as opposed to from its system tray icon (same result).Then, on a "shot in the dark" troubleshooting step, I did a full uninstall of the McAfee Security Suite provided with the machine (with 1 year subscription).
That did the trick!
McAfee was blocking the cellular card utility from launching, despite its firewall not even listing it as a blocked executable or anything!
Nice.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584497</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwid</title>
	<author>sgant</author>
	<datestamp>1246729500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Symantec Exec to board members:</b> <i>"Holy underwear! Free Antivirus! From Microsoft! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec Exec to board members : " Holy underwear !
Free Antivirus !
From Microsoft !
We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here , gentlemen !
We must do something about this immediately !
Immediately ! Immediately !
Harrumph ! Harrumph !
Harrumph !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec Exec to board members: "Holy underwear!
Free Antivirus!
From Microsoft!
We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!
We must do something about this immediately!
Immediately! Immediately!
Harrumph! Harrumph!
Harrumph!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580533</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's the good idea on paper about anti-virus?<br>as far I can remember this problem is as hard as any undecidable (see Turing) and is therefore hopeless on paper, while in practice it's a continuous arms race and you may struggle with heuristics for eternity.<br>see you on unix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's the good idea on paper about anti-virus ? as far I can remember this problem is as hard as any undecidable ( see Turing ) and is therefore hopeless on paper , while in practice it 's a continuous arms race and you may struggle with heuristics for eternity.see you on unix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's the good idea on paper about anti-virus?as far I can remember this problem is as hard as any undecidable (see Turing) and is therefore hopeless on paper, while in practice it's a continuous arms race and you may struggle with heuristics for eternity.see you on unix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585881</id>
	<title>Avast anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246801560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avast anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avast anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avast anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580787</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246728540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it happens sometimes that, when you have a market that most of the consumers don't understand how to compare quality of different vendors, any vendor that seems common and "normal" also seems like a safe bet.  Back in the DOS days, Norton Antivirus and Norton Utilities were very good products, and they gained a good reputation.  They've sort of been riding off of that reputation ever since.
</p><p>So someone's grandma gets told by someone or other that she needs and antivirus.  She doesn't even really understand what an antivirus is, let alone what would make one antivirus better than another.  She goes to Best Buy and finds the shelf where all the AV products are.  The only name she recognizes is "Norton", so she buys it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it happens sometimes that , when you have a market that most of the consumers do n't understand how to compare quality of different vendors , any vendor that seems common and " normal " also seems like a safe bet .
Back in the DOS days , Norton Antivirus and Norton Utilities were very good products , and they gained a good reputation .
They 've sort of been riding off of that reputation ever since .
So someone 's grandma gets told by someone or other that she needs and antivirus .
She does n't even really understand what an antivirus is , let alone what would make one antivirus better than another .
She goes to Best Buy and finds the shelf where all the AV products are .
The only name she recognizes is " Norton " , so she buys it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it happens sometimes that, when you have a market that most of the consumers don't understand how to compare quality of different vendors, any vendor that seems common and "normal" also seems like a safe bet.
Back in the DOS days, Norton Antivirus and Norton Utilities were very good products, and they gained a good reputation.
They've sort of been riding off of that reputation ever since.
So someone's grandma gets told by someone or other that she needs and antivirus.
She doesn't even really understand what an antivirus is, let alone what would make one antivirus better than another.
She goes to Best Buy and finds the shelf where all the AV products are.
The only name she recognizes is "Norton", so she buys it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580181</id>
	<title>Microsoft Security Essentials</title>
	<author>donparr</author>
	<datestamp>1246723080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though Microsoft Security Essentials isn't currently available for additional participants. The wife and I got it when it first came available for my XP Pro and her Vista PC. We have found it to be quite good on both computers. In my opinion, Free software does not mean inferior anymore than Pay software means superior? I'm a firm believer in what works - free or not. I also run free antivirus on my Apple computers - iAntiVirus on my iMac, and ClamXav on my iBook - free is good but if I didn't think they did as good a job, I wouldn't use them. Since I DO think they do as good a job, in some cases better, free is good<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though Microsoft Security Essentials is n't currently available for additional participants .
The wife and I got it when it first came available for my XP Pro and her Vista PC .
We have found it to be quite good on both computers .
In my opinion , Free software does not mean inferior anymore than Pay software means superior ?
I 'm a firm believer in what works - free or not .
I also run free antivirus on my Apple computers - iAntiVirus on my iMac , and ClamXav on my iBook - free is good but if I did n't think they did as good a job , I would n't use them .
Since I DO think they do as good a job , in some cases better , free is good : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though Microsoft Security Essentials isn't currently available for additional participants.
The wife and I got it when it first came available for my XP Pro and her Vista PC.
We have found it to be quite good on both computers.
In my opinion, Free software does not mean inferior anymore than Pay software means superior?
I'm a firm believer in what works - free or not.
I also run free antivirus on my Apple computers - iAntiVirus on my iMac, and ClamXav on my iBook - free is good but if I didn't think they did as good a job, I wouldn't use them.
Since I DO think they do as good a job, in some cases better, free is good :).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579959</id>
	<title>Symantec removal tool</title>
	<author>sdturf</author>
	<datestamp>1246721100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enter "symantec" in google with google suggestion feature on and the first two results are "symantec antivirus" and "symantec removal tool"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enter " symantec " in google with google suggestion feature on and the first two results are " symantec antivirus " and " symantec removal tool "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enter "symantec" in google with google suggestion feature on and the first two results are "symantec antivirus" and "symantec removal tool"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585679</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246797360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a threat to me.  I don't take kindly to threats.  To me it's an admission they fund if not personally help write the crap we are trying to stop in the first place.  Go to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a threat to me .
I do n't take kindly to threats .
To me it 's an admission they fund if not personally help write the crap we are trying to stop in the first place .
Go to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a threat to me.
I don't take kindly to threats.
To me it's an admission they fund if not personally help write the crap we are trying to stop in the first place.
Go to hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579775</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business. There's something deeply wrong with that.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's easy - software bundle contracts with all major computer vendors, branding and market exposure, plus they seem to always be available for interviews with '60 minutes' every time there's a trojan/virus outbreak like Conficker. This all culminates into ordinary people looking at anti-virus boxes on retail store shelves, seeing 'Symantic' and triggering that name from wherever they heard or saw it before.</p><p>It's simple marketing, and the fact they're still in business means they're damn good at it. Just like Microsoft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business .
There 's something deeply wrong with that.That 's easy - software bundle contracts with all major computer vendors , branding and market exposure , plus they seem to always be available for interviews with '60 minutes ' every time there 's a trojan/virus outbreak like Conficker .
This all culminates into ordinary people looking at anti-virus boxes on retail store shelves , seeing 'Symantic ' and triggering that name from wherever they heard or saw it before.It 's simple marketing , and the fact they 're still in business means they 're damn good at it .
Just like Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business.
There's something deeply wrong with that.That's easy - software bundle contracts with all major computer vendors, branding and market exposure, plus they seem to always be available for interviews with '60 minutes' every time there's a trojan/virus outbreak like Conficker.
This all culminates into ordinary people looking at anti-virus boxes on retail store shelves, seeing 'Symantic' and triggering that name from wherever they heard or saw it before.It's simple marketing, and the fact they're still in business means they're damn good at it.
Just like Microsoft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582673</id>
	<title>Puzzlement....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The above statement and common hearsay about computer vulnerability remind me of the color-coded terror alert level here in the USA, where many people seem to best respond to fear and absurd simplification. And statements like this really only serve 1) The profits of the fear-mongering executive's company, and 2) To misinform the layperson. <br>
&nbsp; </p><p>A favorite bit of comedy has been to ask people to imagine a virus that slows down boot time considerably, constantly runs in the background eating an inordinate amount of memory, besieges the user with incessant pop-ups about updates, interferes with the use of some software and games, and most of all, charges you REAL MONEY on a regular basis (what is the interval 6-12 months?). This has been my experience with McAfee and Norton (on other people's PCs). Also, as some have mentioned, they are impossible for the average user to uninstall (and residual junk can still annoy or sit in one's registry). The point is that the solution is worse than the problem. <br>
&nbsp; </p><p>Anytime I've helped someone clear a virus, the absolute worst it's come to has been reformatting the hard drive. Responsible computer users know to back up their data, so no sweat.<br>
&nbsp; </p><p>Along the lines of responsibility, a lot of the mess can be avoided by simple things like:<br>
&nbsp; </p><p>- Not using IE<br>- Avoiding porn, warez, illegal video streaming sites<br>- Not using Limewire ("Wow! This file matches my search exactly! And it's only 700kb! Pretty small for a movie....")</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>I personally am puzzled, since as a decade+ windows user (whose computer use has veered into the dreaded realms of online piracy and elsewhere), I have never gotten a virus using free to no antivirus software. Avast is nice though, especially if you turn off the goofy audio notifications, set it to update automatically, and hide it in the tray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The above statement and common hearsay about computer vulnerability remind me of the color-coded terror alert level here in the USA , where many people seem to best respond to fear and absurd simplification .
And statements like this really only serve 1 ) The profits of the fear-mongering executive 's company , and 2 ) To misinform the layperson .
  A favorite bit of comedy has been to ask people to imagine a virus that slows down boot time considerably , constantly runs in the background eating an inordinate amount of memory , besieges the user with incessant pop-ups about updates , interferes with the use of some software and games , and most of all , charges you REAL MONEY on a regular basis ( what is the interval 6-12 months ? ) .
This has been my experience with McAfee and Norton ( on other people 's PCs ) .
Also , as some have mentioned , they are impossible for the average user to uninstall ( and residual junk can still annoy or sit in one 's registry ) .
The point is that the solution is worse than the problem .
  Anytime I 've helped someone clear a virus , the absolute worst it 's come to has been reformatting the hard drive .
Responsible computer users know to back up their data , so no sweat .
  Along the lines of responsibility , a lot of the mess can be avoided by simple things like :   - Not using IE- Avoiding porn , warez , illegal video streaming sites- Not using Limewire ( " Wow !
This file matches my search exactly !
And it 's only 700kb !
Pretty small for a movie.... " )   I personally am puzzled , since as a decade + windows user ( whose computer use has veered into the dreaded realms of online piracy and elsewhere ) , I have never gotten a virus using free to no antivirus software .
Avast is nice though , especially if you turn off the goofy audio notifications , set it to update automatically , and hide it in the tray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The above statement and common hearsay about computer vulnerability remind me of the color-coded terror alert level here in the USA, where many people seem to best respond to fear and absurd simplification.
And statements like this really only serve 1) The profits of the fear-mongering executive's company, and 2) To misinform the layperson.
  A favorite bit of comedy has been to ask people to imagine a virus that slows down boot time considerably, constantly runs in the background eating an inordinate amount of memory, besieges the user with incessant pop-ups about updates, interferes with the use of some software and games, and most of all, charges you REAL MONEY on a regular basis (what is the interval 6-12 months?).
This has been my experience with McAfee and Norton (on other people's PCs).
Also, as some have mentioned, they are impossible for the average user to uninstall (and residual junk can still annoy or sit in one's registry).
The point is that the solution is worse than the problem.
  Anytime I've helped someone clear a virus, the absolute worst it's come to has been reformatting the hard drive.
Responsible computer users know to back up their data, so no sweat.
  Along the lines of responsibility, a lot of the mess can be avoided by simple things like:
  - Not using IE- Avoiding porn, warez, illegal video streaming sites- Not using Limewire ("Wow!
This file matches my search exactly!
And it's only 700kb!
Pretty small for a movie....")
  I personally am puzzled, since as a decade+ windows user (whose computer use has veered into the dreaded realms of online piracy and elsewhere), I have never gotten a virus using free to no antivirus software.
Avast is nice though, especially if you turn off the goofy audio notifications, set it to update automatically, and hide it in the tray.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653</id>
	<title>Predictable much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246717920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course they say that. They are in the business of scaring people into buying their crap so they think they are safe -- when in actuality their vict^Wcostumers get pwned by exploitable holes in IE anydangway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they say that .
They are in the business of scaring people into buying their crap so they think they are safe -- when in actuality their vict ^ Wcostumers get pwned by exploitable holes in IE anydangway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they say that.
They are in the business of scaring people into buying their crap so they think they are safe -- when in actuality their vict^Wcostumers get pwned by exploitable holes in IE anydangway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579957</id>
	<title>Given the choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246721100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>between Symantec software or a virus, I'd take the virus any day. Removing any Symantec software is the first thing that is done after unpacking a new PC in our company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>between Symantec software or a virus , I 'd take the virus any day .
Removing any Symantec software is the first thing that is done after unpacking a new PC in our company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>between Symantec software or a virus, I'd take the virus any day.
Removing any Symantec software is the first thing that is done after unpacking a new PC in our company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579865</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1246720080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Symantec Exec Warns Against Relying On Free Antivirus</p></div></blockquote><p>And Sony exec says all the movies on TPB are horrible quality. Ubisoft claims playing cracked games can cause skin rashes and your nuts to fall off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec Exec Warns Against Relying On Free AntivirusAnd Sony exec says all the movies on TPB are horrible quality .
Ubisoft claims playing cracked games can cause skin rashes and your nuts to fall off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Symantec Exec Warns Against Relying On Free AntivirusAnd Sony exec says all the movies on TPB are horrible quality.
Ubisoft claims playing cracked games can cause skin rashes and your nuts to fall off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583997</id>
	<title>Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>Joebert</author>
	<datestamp>1246721400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck you  Symantec.<br> <br>

Your shit is just as bad as the free stuff. It gives me a false sense of hope, makes me feel I'm safe when I'm not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you Symantec .
Your shit is just as bad as the free stuff .
It gives me a false sense of hope , makes me feel I 'm safe when I 'm not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you  Symantec.
Your shit is just as bad as the free stuff.
It gives me a false sense of hope, makes me feel I'm safe when I'm not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28599171</id>
	<title>"Pro-*NIX" trolls, step inside... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246872660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Witness some proofs/evidences, vs. the "-1 Troll mod-down" I received for posting the truth (vs. the "Pro-*NIX crowd's b.s, they're the TRUE trolls around this website which is sadly INFESTED by them &amp; their false propoganda) especially of companies (with larger "tpm"/transaction-per-minute or per day than NASDAQ even has etc. et al, no less) that are doing GREAT using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005:</p><p>----</p><p> <b>FUJIFILM</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] </p><p>"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company</p><p>----</p><p> <b>XEROX</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133</a> [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]</p><p>"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services</p><p>----</p><p> <b>ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789" title="cwhonors.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789</a> [cwhonors.org] [cwhonors.org]</p><p>"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"</p><p>----</p><p> <b>MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY:</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer:</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]</p><p>"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve<br>enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"</p><p>----</p><p> <b>AND, Here is a rating of "does the job PERFECTLY" by Ken Richmond, the guy who RUNS THE SHOW IN IS/IT @ NASDAQ FOR YOUR FURTHER REFERENCE</b> (&amp; perfect? MEANS PERFECT - 99.999\% uptime):</p><p>----</p><p>"The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry. For years, we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.</p><p>"The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions." - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.</p><p>"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. <b>It has worked perfectly for us</b>" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.</p><p>----</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Witness some proofs/evidences , vs. the " -1 Troll mod-down " I received for posting the truth ( vs. the " Pro- * NIX crowd 's b.s , they 're the TRUE trolls around this website which is sadly INFESTED by them &amp; their false propoganda ) especially of companies ( with larger " tpm " /transaction-per-minute or per day than NASDAQ even has etc .
et al , no less ) that are doing GREAT using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 : ---- FUJIFILM = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : YsNIT18PBTEJ : download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm \ _SQLServerCaseStudy.doc + \ % 22SQL + Server + 2005 \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 64&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] " This is a mission-critical project , which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability .
Stoppages are just not acceptable .
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require .
" - Michito Watanabe , President and Managing Director , Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 49133 [ microsoft.com ] [ microsoft.com ] " SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application .
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application , we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities .
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager , Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp ? NominationID = 789 [ cwhonors.org ] [ cwhonors.org ] " By migrating to the Fujitsu platform , Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability " ---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY : = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : VgxcewyAjkgJ : download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf + \ % 22SQLServer \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 19&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] [ 74.125.47.132 ] " MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek , and 365 days a year " ,says Catassi .
" WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability " ---- AND , Here is a rating of " does the job PERFECTLY " by Ken Richmond , the guy who RUNS THE SHOW IN IS/IT @ NASDAQ FOR YOUR FURTHER REFERENCE ( &amp; perfect ?
MEANS PERFECT - 99.999 \ % uptime ) : ---- " The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry .
For years , we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability " - Ken Richmond , vice president for software engineering , market information systems at NASDAQ .
" The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions .
" - Ken Richmond , vice president for software engineering , market information systems at NASDAQ .
" We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data .
It has worked perfectly for us " - Ken Richmond , vice president for software engineering , market information systems at NASDAQ.----</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Witness some proofs/evidences, vs. the "-1 Troll mod-down" I received for posting the truth (vs. the "Pro-*NIX crowd's b.s, they're the TRUE trolls around this website which is sadly INFESTED by them &amp; their false propoganda) especially of companies (with larger "tpm"/transaction-per-minute or per day than NASDAQ even has etc.
et al, no less) that are doing GREAT using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005:---- FUJIFILM = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] "This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability.
Stoppages are just not acceptable.
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require.
" - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133 [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application.
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities.
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789 [cwhonors.org] [cwhonors.org]"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi.
"WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"---- AND, Here is a rating of "does the job PERFECTLY" by Ken Richmond, the guy who RUNS THE SHOW IN IS/IT @ NASDAQ FOR YOUR FURTHER REFERENCE (&amp; perfect?
MEANS PERFECT - 99.999\% uptime):----"The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry.
For years, we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions.
" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data.
It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.----</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579943</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than Norton</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246720920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until I managed to get a significant portion of my clients away from your products, they paid me to fix problems with your software more often than any other single product by a factor of 10.</p></div><p>Why are you moving people away from a major source of income?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until I managed to get a significant portion of my clients away from your products , they paid me to fix problems with your software more often than any other single product by a factor of 10.Why are you moving people away from a major source of income ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until I managed to get a significant portion of my clients away from your products, they paid me to fix problems with your software more often than any other single product by a factor of 10.Why are you moving people away from a major source of income?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583733</id>
	<title>ZoneAlarm</title>
	<author>Hach-Que</author>
	<datestamp>1246716840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised that there's been hardly any mention of the ZoneAlarm firewall in this topic.<br>
<br>
I've used it for quite some time, and I've never had a problem with it.  I've seen AVG, Avast, etc.. installed on personal computers and they all look completely insecure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that there 's been hardly any mention of the ZoneAlarm firewall in this topic .
I 've used it for quite some time , and I 've never had a problem with it .
I 've seen AVG , Avast , etc.. installed on personal computers and they all look completely insecure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that there's been hardly any mention of the ZoneAlarm firewall in this topic.
I've used it for quite some time, and I've never had a problem with it.
I've seen AVG, Avast, etc.. installed on personal computers and they all look completely insecure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586143</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>yargnad</author>
	<datestamp>1246805940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "Removal Tool" you speak of can actually remove your boot sector too.  I have experienced this on more than one occasion. And on at least one other, I swear it ejected a DIMM from its slot.
<br> <br>
Symantec is by far the largest corporate illusion I have ever witnessed. They do, for all intents and purposes, seem to be an enterprise class company, but I have never dealt with so many issues with software in my life. Transient features that come and go with minor version increments, constant name changes of a single product line, constant license input changes, you name it.
<br> <br>
If it's a dumb idea Symantec invented it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Removal Tool " you speak of can actually remove your boot sector too .
I have experienced this on more than one occasion .
And on at least one other , I swear it ejected a DIMM from its slot .
Symantec is by far the largest corporate illusion I have ever witnessed .
They do , for all intents and purposes , seem to be an enterprise class company , but I have never dealt with so many issues with software in my life .
Transient features that come and go with minor version increments , constant name changes of a single product line , constant license input changes , you name it .
If it 's a dumb idea Symantec invented it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Removal Tool" you speak of can actually remove your boot sector too.
I have experienced this on more than one occasion.
And on at least one other, I swear it ejected a DIMM from its slot.
Symantec is by far the largest corporate illusion I have ever witnessed.
They do, for all intents and purposes, seem to be an enterprise class company, but I have never dealt with so many issues with software in my life.
Transient features that come and go with minor version increments, constant name changes of a single product line, constant license input changes, you name it.
If it's a dumb idea Symantec invented it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581477</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>prodevel</author>
	<datestamp>1246733640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fire hot, water wet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fire hot , water wet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fire hot, water wet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581225</id>
	<title>Symantec is a joke, always has been</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246731900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, right. This is coming from the creators of Norton...which is the biggest laughing stock of an antivirus? When people write trojans for botnets, it's always a given that the last antivirus that will catch on will be Norton, meaning months before their definitions catch on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , right .
This is coming from the creators of Norton...which is the biggest laughing stock of an antivirus ?
When people write trojans for botnets , it 's always a given that the last antivirus that will catch on will be Norton , meaning months before their definitions catch on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, right.
This is coming from the creators of Norton...which is the biggest laughing stock of an antivirus?
When people write trojans for botnets, it's always a given that the last antivirus that will catch on will be Norton, meaning months before their definitions catch on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579687</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1246718280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they would know since they are the major malware authors. Duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they would know since they are the major malware authors .
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they would know since they are the major malware authors.
Duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585571</id>
	<title>AVANT or Kaspersky</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1246794360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have used Avant in a company, and although it was irritating (does it really HAVE to tell you it's updating) it did the job.</p><p>I use Kaspersky for my own company.  Does the job.  Simple.</p><p>Every single new system and laptop I come across is either infested with Symantec or Norton, and in my opinion they're both about the most useless solution available - I think they have gotten lazy off the profits they make from pre-installs.  They are resource hogs, expensive and don't appear to add that much value for the constant pain in the rear end they are to maintain, so those products are almost banned by default.  As is MS Office now - we get on fine with OOo.</p><p>All I need now is a DECENT Outlook replacement.  Not to say that Outlook itself is decent, but it's unfortunately the only program mobile phone suppliers feel like integrating with for contact and diary management which is VERY annoying, and has already led to research which makes will no longer be accepted for corpoate use.</p><p>Meanwhile, the trend appears to be that we'll switch to Apple with Linux back ends.  I know that's switching one monopoly for another, but it appears to make sense for us (so far, still researching).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have used Avant in a company , and although it was irritating ( does it really HAVE to tell you it 's updating ) it did the job.I use Kaspersky for my own company .
Does the job .
Simple.Every single new system and laptop I come across is either infested with Symantec or Norton , and in my opinion they 're both about the most useless solution available - I think they have gotten lazy off the profits they make from pre-installs .
They are resource hogs , expensive and do n't appear to add that much value for the constant pain in the rear end they are to maintain , so those products are almost banned by default .
As is MS Office now - we get on fine with OOo.All I need now is a DECENT Outlook replacement .
Not to say that Outlook itself is decent , but it 's unfortunately the only program mobile phone suppliers feel like integrating with for contact and diary management which is VERY annoying , and has already led to research which makes will no longer be accepted for corpoate use.Meanwhile , the trend appears to be that we 'll switch to Apple with Linux back ends .
I know that 's switching one monopoly for another , but it appears to make sense for us ( so far , still researching ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have used Avant in a company, and although it was irritating (does it really HAVE to tell you it's updating) it did the job.I use Kaspersky for my own company.
Does the job.
Simple.Every single new system and laptop I come across is either infested with Symantec or Norton, and in my opinion they're both about the most useless solution available - I think they have gotten lazy off the profits they make from pre-installs.
They are resource hogs, expensive and don't appear to add that much value for the constant pain in the rear end they are to maintain, so those products are almost banned by default.
As is MS Office now - we get on fine with OOo.All I need now is a DECENT Outlook replacement.
Not to say that Outlook itself is decent, but it's unfortunately the only program mobile phone suppliers feel like integrating with for contact and diary management which is VERY annoying, and has already led to research which makes will no longer be accepted for corpoate use.Meanwhile, the trend appears to be that we'll switch to Apple with Linux back ends.
I know that's switching one monopoly for another, but it appears to make sense for us (so far, still researching).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580077</id>
	<title>Re:Of course...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that myth stays in circulation, but trust me: AV companies do not write malware. For two reasons:</p><p>First, AV companies do talk a lot. Not only at conferences. There's a well built and solid network of sample exchange between them. Of course, you delay it a few hours or a day before you forward your new samples to the others so you can have a 'first', but a global malware detection array is in nobody's budget possible. So they split the world and detect together. Should it become known that you spew malware yourself, you're OUT. And that means you're dead.</p><p>And second, why bother the cost? You get the malware for free anyway. There are people who make it their (illegal, but who cares?) business to write and spread it. Why should I invest money into something I get free of charge?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that myth stays in circulation , but trust me : AV companies do not write malware .
For two reasons : First , AV companies do talk a lot .
Not only at conferences .
There 's a well built and solid network of sample exchange between them .
Of course , you delay it a few hours or a day before you forward your new samples to the others so you can have a 'first ' , but a global malware detection array is in nobody 's budget possible .
So they split the world and detect together .
Should it become known that you spew malware yourself , you 're OUT .
And that means you 're dead.And second , why bother the cost ?
You get the malware for free anyway .
There are people who make it their ( illegal , but who cares ?
) business to write and spread it .
Why should I invest money into something I get free of charge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that myth stays in circulation, but trust me: AV companies do not write malware.
For two reasons:First, AV companies do talk a lot.
Not only at conferences.
There's a well built and solid network of sample exchange between them.
Of course, you delay it a few hours or a day before you forward your new samples to the others so you can have a 'first', but a global malware detection array is in nobody's budget possible.
So they split the world and detect together.
Should it become known that you spew malware yourself, you're OUT.
And that means you're dead.And second, why bother the cost?
You get the malware for free anyway.
There are people who make it their (illegal, but who cares?
) business to write and spread it.
Why should I invest money into something I get free of charge?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579817</id>
	<title>Linux is the best AV solution (its also free)</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1246719540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my experience (which is fixing other peoples Windows infested crap) the most reliable way of detecting a virus is to run from a Linux livecd.
<br> <br>
Download clamav, then check the drive. <br> <br>
The reason I say it is better is because many virus/malware disable AV features in Windows so you can never be 100\% sure  - I know you can get clamwin but again some 'bad thing' could have disabled some it it's features...and  linux allows you to write to folders  that would be normally projected by the system (i know there is any obvious danger to this)<br> <br>
There has been at least 2 cases in the last month where a vista machine (one had norten and signed up to onecare,,,) which had av protection was not able to completely get rid of a trojan -  even using clamwin - clamav in linux sorted it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience ( which is fixing other peoples Windows infested crap ) the most reliable way of detecting a virus is to run from a Linux livecd .
Download clamav , then check the drive .
The reason I say it is better is because many virus/malware disable AV features in Windows so you can never be 100 \ % sure - I know you can get clamwin but again some 'bad thing ' could have disabled some it it 's features...and linux allows you to write to folders that would be normally projected by the system ( i know there is any obvious danger to this ) There has been at least 2 cases in the last month where a vista machine ( one had norten and signed up to onecare,, , ) which had av protection was not able to completely get rid of a trojan - even using clamwin - clamav in linux sorted it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience (which is fixing other peoples Windows infested crap) the most reliable way of detecting a virus is to run from a Linux livecd.
Download clamav, then check the drive.
The reason I say it is better is because many virus/malware disable AV features in Windows so you can never be 100\% sure  - I know you can get clamwin but again some 'bad thing' could have disabled some it it's features...and  linux allows you to write to folders  that would be normally projected by the system (i know there is any obvious danger to this) 
There has been at least 2 cases in the last month where a vista machine (one had norten and signed up to onecare,,,) which had av protection was not able to completely get rid of a trojan -  even using clamwin - clamav in linux sorted it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584465</id>
	<title>Paid AVs are worse than viruses!!</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1246728900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at Symantec -- their software constantly nags you with popup messages AND it makes sport of demanding money to protect your computer.  Symantec is WORSE than getting a virus.</p><p>Does something like AVG or Clam provide perfect protection?  No.</p><p>But, if the AV'ss going to miss the mark, it's nice to not have to pay ransom money to Symantec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at Symantec -- their software constantly nags you with popup messages AND it makes sport of demanding money to protect your computer .
Symantec is WORSE than getting a virus.Does something like AVG or Clam provide perfect protection ?
No.But , if the AV'ss going to miss the mark , it 's nice to not have to pay ransom money to Symantec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at Symantec -- their software constantly nags you with popup messages AND it makes sport of demanding money to protect your computer.
Symantec is WORSE than getting a virus.Does something like AVG or Clam provide perfect protection?
No.But, if the AV'ss going to miss the mark, it's nice to not have to pay ransom money to Symantec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28609431</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1246986480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I think you are doing something horribly wrong. I haven't had a virus in 15 years or so.</i> <br>
<br>
That you know of.<br>
<br>
There's a lot more infection vectors then there were 5 years ago.  Even with all of the security patches over the years, we're still losing the race to lock things down before for-profit crackers manage to exploit things.  And they're a lot more subtle then they used to be.  A lot of the trojans, key loggers, and the like are silent installs with no outward signs (other then network traffic).<br>
<br>
Early half of the 2000s, we saw nary a single infection in our company and associates.  Second half of the 2000s, infections galore.  It's not the end of the world, but it's not a pretty sight either at the moment.  My mental bet is whether javascript and Flash will end up as pariahs by 2015 (which will pretty much kill ad revenue).<br>
<br>
Lock your systems down.  Disable javascript, flash, and Adobe PDF (3 of the common vectors).  Take preventative actions like making backups, snapshots, and doing offsite storage.<br>
<br>
But don't make the assumption that you've not been infected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are doing something horribly wrong .
I have n't had a virus in 15 years or so .
That you know of .
There 's a lot more infection vectors then there were 5 years ago .
Even with all of the security patches over the years , we 're still losing the race to lock things down before for-profit crackers manage to exploit things .
And they 're a lot more subtle then they used to be .
A lot of the trojans , key loggers , and the like are silent installs with no outward signs ( other then network traffic ) .
Early half of the 2000s , we saw nary a single infection in our company and associates .
Second half of the 2000s , infections galore .
It 's not the end of the world , but it 's not a pretty sight either at the moment .
My mental bet is whether javascript and Flash will end up as pariahs by 2015 ( which will pretty much kill ad revenue ) .
Lock your systems down .
Disable javascript , flash , and Adobe PDF ( 3 of the common vectors ) .
Take preventative actions like making backups , snapshots , and doing offsite storage .
But do n't make the assumption that you 've not been infected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are doing something horribly wrong.
I haven't had a virus in 15 years or so.
That you know of.
There's a lot more infection vectors then there were 5 years ago.
Even with all of the security patches over the years, we're still losing the race to lock things down before for-profit crackers manage to exploit things.
And they're a lot more subtle then they used to be.
A lot of the trojans, key loggers, and the like are silent installs with no outward signs (other then network traffic).
Early half of the 2000s, we saw nary a single infection in our company and associates.
Second half of the 2000s, infections galore.
It's not the end of the world, but it's not a pretty sight either at the moment.
My mental bet is whether javascript and Flash will end up as pariahs by 2015 (which will pretty much kill ad revenue).
Lock your systems down.
Disable javascript, flash, and Adobe PDF (3 of the common vectors).
Take preventative actions like making backups, snapshots, and doing offsite storage.
But don't make the assumption that you've not been infected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582103</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246740480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up until a couple of years ago Symantec's enterprise "network threat protection" (which installed alongside their enterprise antivirus) would block computers on which it was installed from having Symantec Antivirus remotely installed or updated.  The manual that came with told you how to basically tear gaping holes in the firewall to allow the antivirus to work.</p><p>Their firewall treated their antivirus as a threat.  And so do I.  When my home client's subscriptions run out I tell them to uninstall Symantec and get Avast!  There are a number of free antiviruses that protect as well, if not better, than McAfee &amp; Symantec without slowning down the computer nearly as much and without annoying pop-ups, warnings and re-subscribe messages that just confuse users until they just begin ignoring them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up until a couple of years ago Symantec 's enterprise " network threat protection " ( which installed alongside their enterprise antivirus ) would block computers on which it was installed from having Symantec Antivirus remotely installed or updated .
The manual that came with told you how to basically tear gaping holes in the firewall to allow the antivirus to work.Their firewall treated their antivirus as a threat .
And so do I. When my home client 's subscriptions run out I tell them to uninstall Symantec and get Avast !
There are a number of free antiviruses that protect as well , if not better , than McAfee &amp; Symantec without slowning down the computer nearly as much and without annoying pop-ups , warnings and re-subscribe messages that just confuse users until they just begin ignoring them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up until a couple of years ago Symantec's enterprise "network threat protection" (which installed alongside their enterprise antivirus) would block computers on which it was installed from having Symantec Antivirus remotely installed or updated.
The manual that came with told you how to basically tear gaping holes in the firewall to allow the antivirus to work.Their firewall treated their antivirus as a threat.
And so do I.  When my home client's subscriptions run out I tell them to uninstall Symantec and get Avast!
There are a number of free antiviruses that protect as well, if not better, than McAfee &amp; Symantec without slowning down the computer nearly as much and without annoying pop-ups, warnings and re-subscribe messages that just confuse users until they just begin ignoring them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579961</id>
	<title>He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246721100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft,'</p><p>If you remove the word 'free' this statement is still correct</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age , you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft,'If you remove the word 'free ' this statement is still correct</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft,'If you remove the word 'free' this statement is still correct</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582083</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246740240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So at what point does McAffee declare WindowsAntiVirus a virus, and start the OSWARs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So at what point does McAffee declare WindowsAntiVirus a virus , and start the OSWARs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So at what point does McAffee declare WindowsAntiVirus a virus, and start the OSWARs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584489</id>
	<title>The Symantec I dont trust</title>
	<author>XMode</author>
	<datestamp>1246729380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will share a short story of why this announcement isn't worth anything to me. Its purely based on my experience and may or may not be indicative of the software as a whole.</p><p>I started a new system admin job around 12 months ago now. All of the servers were up and running happily when I started and I had little to no documentation (its always the case).</p><p>2 weeks after I start and im still trying to figure out how all the systems have been setup. I'm playing around on the file server trying to work out the file permissions or something equally as boring when I start to receive some calls saying the email isn't working. My email is working fine so I immediately try and work out what on the users machines is causing this. After a few hours it becomes evident that its effecting anyone that logged in to their system after about 9am, but the people already logged in to the before them are still working fine.</p><p>I figure its got to be something on the server end and im getting put under the pump to try and fix it, so I try a magic reboot of the exchange server. This makes it worse as now no one can log in at all. After some digging around I work out that somehow the firewall in Symantec Endpoint that has been installed on the exchange server has decided that its under a DDOS attack and is blocking all the exchange traffic thinking its part of that attack. I disable the firewall and all comes good.</p><p>Now it stays like this in its disabled state for a few weeks and I forget that it even had an issue as i battle with the network config (trying to work out whats what). Patch day comes around and exchange gets a patch that requires a reboot. System gos down overnight and when i come back in the morning, no email for everyone again. The firewall had turned its self back on after the reboot and gone back to blocking everything again. This time I uninstall it.</p><p>A short while after when doing a system audit I remember that the exchange server no longer has a firewall or antivirus on it, so being the good little system admin I attempt to reinstall endpoint. It refuses to reinstall.</p><p>I spend more hours digging around for a solution and I try the removal tool, but nothing I can do will get the system to a state when endpoint will reinstall.. So that is the state our exchange server is now it and has been in for a little under 12 months. I cant afford to rebuild the server, or even reboot it that often. Everything is working and I spend all day hoping that the remnants of endpoint don't suddenly decide to hose the system.</p><p>Now this would sound like a nice little isolated issue, however in the following 3 months I have had exactly the same thing happen to at least 3 more servers. All problems were solved by removing endpoint and then I could not reinstall it.</p><p>We are just starting the process of a server refresh (new hardware and a new version of windows to boot) and im not planing on running any antivirus on any of them, its just not worth the problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will share a short story of why this announcement is n't worth anything to me .
Its purely based on my experience and may or may not be indicative of the software as a whole.I started a new system admin job around 12 months ago now .
All of the servers were up and running happily when I started and I had little to no documentation ( its always the case ) .2 weeks after I start and im still trying to figure out how all the systems have been setup .
I 'm playing around on the file server trying to work out the file permissions or something equally as boring when I start to receive some calls saying the email is n't working .
My email is working fine so I immediately try and work out what on the users machines is causing this .
After a few hours it becomes evident that its effecting anyone that logged in to their system after about 9am , but the people already logged in to the before them are still working fine.I figure its got to be something on the server end and im getting put under the pump to try and fix it , so I try a magic reboot of the exchange server .
This makes it worse as now no one can log in at all .
After some digging around I work out that somehow the firewall in Symantec Endpoint that has been installed on the exchange server has decided that its under a DDOS attack and is blocking all the exchange traffic thinking its part of that attack .
I disable the firewall and all comes good.Now it stays like this in its disabled state for a few weeks and I forget that it even had an issue as i battle with the network config ( trying to work out whats what ) .
Patch day comes around and exchange gets a patch that requires a reboot .
System gos down overnight and when i come back in the morning , no email for everyone again .
The firewall had turned its self back on after the reboot and gone back to blocking everything again .
This time I uninstall it.A short while after when doing a system audit I remember that the exchange server no longer has a firewall or antivirus on it , so being the good little system admin I attempt to reinstall endpoint .
It refuses to reinstall.I spend more hours digging around for a solution and I try the removal tool , but nothing I can do will get the system to a state when endpoint will reinstall.. So that is the state our exchange server is now it and has been in for a little under 12 months .
I cant afford to rebuild the server , or even reboot it that often .
Everything is working and I spend all day hoping that the remnants of endpoint do n't suddenly decide to hose the system.Now this would sound like a nice little isolated issue , however in the following 3 months I have had exactly the same thing happen to at least 3 more servers .
All problems were solved by removing endpoint and then I could not reinstall it.We are just starting the process of a server refresh ( new hardware and a new version of windows to boot ) and im not planing on running any antivirus on any of them , its just not worth the problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will share a short story of why this announcement isn't worth anything to me.
Its purely based on my experience and may or may not be indicative of the software as a whole.I started a new system admin job around 12 months ago now.
All of the servers were up and running happily when I started and I had little to no documentation (its always the case).2 weeks after I start and im still trying to figure out how all the systems have been setup.
I'm playing around on the file server trying to work out the file permissions or something equally as boring when I start to receive some calls saying the email isn't working.
My email is working fine so I immediately try and work out what on the users machines is causing this.
After a few hours it becomes evident that its effecting anyone that logged in to their system after about 9am, but the people already logged in to the before them are still working fine.I figure its got to be something on the server end and im getting put under the pump to try and fix it, so I try a magic reboot of the exchange server.
This makes it worse as now no one can log in at all.
After some digging around I work out that somehow the firewall in Symantec Endpoint that has been installed on the exchange server has decided that its under a DDOS attack and is blocking all the exchange traffic thinking its part of that attack.
I disable the firewall and all comes good.Now it stays like this in its disabled state for a few weeks and I forget that it even had an issue as i battle with the network config (trying to work out whats what).
Patch day comes around and exchange gets a patch that requires a reboot.
System gos down overnight and when i come back in the morning, no email for everyone again.
The firewall had turned its self back on after the reboot and gone back to blocking everything again.
This time I uninstall it.A short while after when doing a system audit I remember that the exchange server no longer has a firewall or antivirus on it, so being the good little system admin I attempt to reinstall endpoint.
It refuses to reinstall.I spend more hours digging around for a solution and I try the removal tool, but nothing I can do will get the system to a state when endpoint will reinstall.. So that is the state our exchange server is now it and has been in for a little under 12 months.
I cant afford to rebuild the server, or even reboot it that often.
Everything is working and I spend all day hoping that the remnants of endpoint don't suddenly decide to hose the system.Now this would sound like a nice little isolated issue, however in the following 3 months I have had exactly the same thing happen to at least 3 more servers.
All problems were solved by removing endpoint and then I could not reinstall it.We are just starting the process of a server refresh (new hardware and a new version of windows to boot) and im not planing on running any antivirus on any of them, its just not worth the problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580017</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>magamiako1</author>
	<datestamp>1246721700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, your post is terribly worded. There haven't been as many holes in IE over the years as some other browsers.<br><br>FF3.5: 0, currently (it just came out 2 days ago)<br>FF3.0: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/ 81 vulnerabilities<br>FF2.0: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12434/ 154 vulnerabilities<br>IE6: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/ 154 vulnerabilities<br>IE7: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/ 84 vulnerabilities<br>IE8: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/ 8 vulnerabilities<br><br>It's clear that IE and FF have the same general history with vulnerabilities, with the earlier products being much less safer than the newer products. Combine IE7/8 with Vista's UAC Protected Mode and you have further protection against system destruction due to a vulnerability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , your post is terribly worded .
There have n't been as many holes in IE over the years as some other browsers.FF3.5 : 0 , currently ( it just came out 2 days ago ) FF3.0 : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/ 81 vulnerabilitiesFF2.0 : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/12434/ 154 vulnerabilitiesIE6 : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/11/ 154 vulnerabilitiesIE7 : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/ 84 vulnerabilitiesIE8 : http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/ 8 vulnerabilitiesIt 's clear that IE and FF have the same general history with vulnerabilities , with the earlier products being much less safer than the newer products .
Combine IE7/8 with Vista 's UAC Protected Mode and you have further protection against system destruction due to a vulnerability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, your post is terribly worded.
There haven't been as many holes in IE over the years as some other browsers.FF3.5: 0, currently (it just came out 2 days ago)FF3.0: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/ 81 vulnerabilitiesFF2.0: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12434/ 154 vulnerabilitiesIE6: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/ 154 vulnerabilitiesIE7: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/ 84 vulnerabilitiesIE8: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/ 8 vulnerabilitiesIt's clear that IE and FF have the same general history with vulnerabilities, with the earlier products being much less safer than the newer products.
Combine IE7/8 with Vista's UAC Protected Mode and you have further protection against system destruction due to a vulnerability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582129</id>
	<title>Re:Linux is the best AV solution (its also free)</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1246740660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except clamwin/av has notoriously bad detection rates. I don't know why it keeps appearing on slashdot.</p><p>"In the 1 - 21 June 2008 test performed by Virus.gr, ClamWin version 0.93 detected 54.68\% of all threats and ranked 37th out of 49 products tested; the best scored over 99\%.[7]"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except clamwin/av has notoriously bad detection rates .
I do n't know why it keeps appearing on slashdot .
" In the 1 - 21 June 2008 test performed by Virus.gr , ClamWin version 0.93 detected 54.68 \ % of all threats and ranked 37th out of 49 products tested ; the best scored over 99 \ % .
[ 7 ] "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except clamwin/av has notoriously bad detection rates.
I don't know why it keeps appearing on slashdot.
"In the 1 - 21 June 2008 test performed by Virus.gr, ClamWin version 0.93 detected 54.68\% of all threats and ranked 37th out of 49 products tested; the best scored over 99\%.
[7]"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580869</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>rastass</author>
	<datestamp>1246729200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My observation of this was receiving 10+ infected emails a day from a large Australian water utility that for some retarded reason used Symantec "AV".   Lucky I was using a free client on my end.

Symantec is rubbish.  If you pay for it you are misinformed.  Avast!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My observation of this was receiving 10 + infected emails a day from a large Australian water utility that for some retarded reason used Symantec " AV " .
Lucky I was using a free client on my end .
Symantec is rubbish .
If you pay for it you are misinformed .
Avast !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My observation of this was receiving 10+ infected emails a day from a large Australian water utility that for some retarded reason used Symantec "AV".
Lucky I was using a free client on my end.
Symantec is rubbish.
If you pay for it you are misinformed.
Avast!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579927</id>
	<title>The worst thing you can do is use the popular one</title>
	<author>cupantae</author>
	<datestamp>1246720740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put yourself in the shoes of a virus writer: do you want to infect as many computers as possible? Yes. So are you going to test your software against the most widely-used AV? You better believe you will. Norton and McAfee offer almost unbeatable vulnerability to newly-written malware. It's simple common sense. Also, do you want to attack the reputation of big, money-hoarding corporations or well-meaning people giving away software they've written? I think that's an easy one. The difference is that when an AV program is actively targeted, the protection you're getting is mostly against past exploits rather than future ones.</p><p>Subjective, anecdotal evidence: My dad was running McAfee until it was brought down by the AntiVirusXP2008 or whatever it was called. Since then, AVG on the Windows computers has been perfect protection (although it hasn't been there long enough for that to be meaningful) and substantially less crippling and annoying, which is always meaningful.</p><p>Of course, as the nerd in the family, I avoid the hornet's nest with free OS's...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put yourself in the shoes of a virus writer : do you want to infect as many computers as possible ?
Yes. So are you going to test your software against the most widely-used AV ?
You better believe you will .
Norton and McAfee offer almost unbeatable vulnerability to newly-written malware .
It 's simple common sense .
Also , do you want to attack the reputation of big , money-hoarding corporations or well-meaning people giving away software they 've written ?
I think that 's an easy one .
The difference is that when an AV program is actively targeted , the protection you 're getting is mostly against past exploits rather than future ones.Subjective , anecdotal evidence : My dad was running McAfee until it was brought down by the AntiVirusXP2008 or whatever it was called .
Since then , AVG on the Windows computers has been perfect protection ( although it has n't been there long enough for that to be meaningful ) and substantially less crippling and annoying , which is always meaningful.Of course , as the nerd in the family , I avoid the hornet 's nest with free OS 's.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put yourself in the shoes of a virus writer: do you want to infect as many computers as possible?
Yes. So are you going to test your software against the most widely-used AV?
You better believe you will.
Norton and McAfee offer almost unbeatable vulnerability to newly-written malware.
It's simple common sense.
Also, do you want to attack the reputation of big, money-hoarding corporations or well-meaning people giving away software they've written?
I think that's an easy one.
The difference is that when an AV program is actively targeted, the protection you're getting is mostly against past exploits rather than future ones.Subjective, anecdotal evidence: My dad was running McAfee until it was brought down by the AntiVirusXP2008 or whatever it was called.
Since then, AVG on the Windows computers has been perfect protection (although it hasn't been there long enough for that to be meaningful) and substantially less crippling and annoying, which is always meaningful.Of course, as the nerd in the family, I avoid the hornet's nest with free OS's...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579985</id>
	<title>So should I install Symantec?</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1246721340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am relying on no virus protection at all.<br>
I am getting my software from trusted sources.<br>
I am not running Windows.<br>
<br>
So should I install Symantec?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am relying on no virus protection at all .
I am getting my software from trusted sources .
I am not running Windows .
So should I install Symantec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am relying on no virus protection at all.
I am getting my software from trusted sources.
I am not running Windows.
So should I install Symantec?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579901</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>achowe</author>
	<datestamp>1246720440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simply put Norton has become the "Microsoft" of AV products, slow, bloated, and works most of the time if you're patient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply put Norton has become the " Microsoft " of AV products , slow , bloated , and works most of the time if you 're patient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply put Norton has become the "Microsoft" of AV products, slow, bloated, and works most of the time if you're patient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580037</id>
	<title>But you're OK if you're running Nawton AV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246721880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>"Clearly, the rise of free antivirus is starting to worry Symantec, with one of their top executives warning consumers not to rely on free antivirus software (including Microsoft's Security Essentials). </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I'd have to say that the commercial home user grade AV products I've seen haven't been any great shakes.  I have seen customer's computers <i>thoroughly</i> infested with crap, to the extent that I had to pull their hard disks and scan them with a clean machine, that were running fully up to date Norton and McAfee home user security products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Clearly , the rise of free antivirus is starting to worry Symantec , with one of their top executives warning consumers not to rely on free antivirus software ( including Microsoft 's Security Essentials ) .
I 'd have to say that the commercial home user grade AV products I 've seen have n't been any great shakes .
I have seen customer 's computers thoroughly infested with crap , to the extent that I had to pull their hard disks and scan them with a clean machine , that were running fully up to date Norton and McAfee home user security products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Clearly, the rise of free antivirus is starting to worry Symantec, with one of their top executives warning consumers not to rely on free antivirus software (including Microsoft's Security Essentials).
I'd have to say that the commercial home user grade AV products I've seen haven't been any great shakes.
I have seen customer's computers thoroughly infested with crap, to the extent that I had to pull their hard disks and scan them with a clean machine, that were running fully up to date Norton and McAfee home user security products.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</id>
	<title>Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1246718280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there choice were only: install Symantec or get a virus, then that's a really difficult choice. I'd be inclined to risk the virus, since Symantec invades and slows your system in a worse way than many infections.<br> <br>

Fortunately, there are many free anti-virus products that work better than Symantec. It's a no-brainer choice. Free is cheaper and better. <br> <br>

I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business. There's something deeply wrong with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there choice were only : install Symantec or get a virus , then that 's a really difficult choice .
I 'd be inclined to risk the virus , since Symantec invades and slows your system in a worse way than many infections .
Fortunately , there are many free anti-virus products that work better than Symantec .
It 's a no-brainer choice .
Free is cheaper and better .
I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business .
There 's something deeply wrong with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there choice were only: install Symantec or get a virus, then that's a really difficult choice.
I'd be inclined to risk the virus, since Symantec invades and slows your system in a worse way than many infections.
Fortunately, there are many free anti-virus products that work better than Symantec.
It's a no-brainer choice.
Free is cheaper and better.
I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business.
There's something deeply wrong with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579925</id>
	<title>Let's look at the best free AV package...</title>
	<author>Mitchell314</author>
	<datestamp>1246720740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It takes up no RAM. <br>
It requires not a single CPU cycle. <br>
It can run on produce. <br>
<br>
It's called common sense and discretion. <br>
<br>
Although using a *nix system can most certainly help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes up no RAM .
It requires not a single CPU cycle .
It can run on produce .
It 's called common sense and discretion .
Although using a * nix system can most certainly help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes up no RAM.
It requires not a single CPU cycle.
It can run on produce.
It's called common sense and discretion.
Although using a *nix system can most certainly help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584813</id>
	<title>Who should know better than Symantec</title>
	<author>arnierosner</author>
	<datestamp>1246736340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The questions needed to be asked...

"So who spawns the viruses or supports the creation of viruses to begin with?"

"How is it the anti-virus companies just conveniently happen to have the fix for the latest viruses?"

"How is it a whole anti-virus industry that supports many multi-megalopolis corporations could be developed simultaneously?"

Curious isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The questions needed to be asked.. . " So who spawns the viruses or supports the creation of viruses to begin with ?
" " How is it the anti-virus companies just conveniently happen to have the fix for the latest viruses ?
" " How is it a whole anti-virus industry that supports many multi-megalopolis corporations could be developed simultaneously ?
" Curious is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The questions needed to be asked...

"So who spawns the viruses or supports the creation of viruses to begin with?
"

"How is it the anti-virus companies just conveniently happen to have the fix for the latest viruses?
"

"How is it a whole anti-virus industry that supports many multi-megalopolis corporations could be developed simultaneously?
"

Curious isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28587599</id>
	<title>Fuck you symantec</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1246822860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't need your bullshit software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need your bullshit software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need your bullshit software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581503</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246733940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used free AV for three or four years now, and the only computer problems I've never gotten a single virus.<br>I think they're just trying to get people to buy their product. (... Yes, I know -\_-<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used free AV for three or four years now , and the only computer problems I 've never gotten a single virus.I think they 're just trying to get people to buy their product .
( ... Yes , I know - \ _- ... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used free AV for three or four years now, and the only computer problems I've never gotten a single virus.I think they're just trying to get people to buy their product.
(... Yes, I know -\_- ...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579991</id>
	<title>Bullshit!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246721400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the average home user I would say that AVG Free or one of the other more innovative, free or low cost antivirus programs is going to give you as good or better protection than symantec, but the real advantage you'll see is that most of symantec's consumer products are overbearing and use far too many system resources - they really slow your system down, they can be a real pain in the ass to remove, and they have a history of conflicting with other software - and they know people know this, it took them a while to realize it and I think they finally noticed how successful AVG has become since about 2004 at attracting users with a free product that offered decent A/V protection without crippling their machines - I have noticed that they are now marketing "norton classic" (at least I think it's symantec,unless they have sold the rights to norton) for $14.99 per year as an "anti-virus that uses few system resources."</p><p>The only symantec A/V product I have used that hasn't been annoying and counter-productive is their corporate version (at least in the early 00s); one of the ISPs I used to to run/manage used it on all of their servers and workstations and it seemed to not have the problems that their consumer offerings do. Once I became familiar with AVG's free options and it came time to protect a smal to medium sized corporate network I decided to go with AVG's network edition - the cost was reasonable comparatively, I think it was around $1k for 40 workstations and a server - the basic deal is that symantec's products just suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the average home user I would say that AVG Free or one of the other more innovative , free or low cost antivirus programs is going to give you as good or better protection than symantec , but the real advantage you 'll see is that most of symantec 's consumer products are overbearing and use far too many system resources - they really slow your system down , they can be a real pain in the ass to remove , and they have a history of conflicting with other software - and they know people know this , it took them a while to realize it and I think they finally noticed how successful AVG has become since about 2004 at attracting users with a free product that offered decent A/V protection without crippling their machines - I have noticed that they are now marketing " norton classic " ( at least I think it 's symantec,unless they have sold the rights to norton ) for $ 14.99 per year as an " anti-virus that uses few system resources .
" The only symantec A/V product I have used that has n't been annoying and counter-productive is their corporate version ( at least in the early 00s ) ; one of the ISPs I used to to run/manage used it on all of their servers and workstations and it seemed to not have the problems that their consumer offerings do .
Once I became familiar with AVG 's free options and it came time to protect a smal to medium sized corporate network I decided to go with AVG 's network edition - the cost was reasonable comparatively , I think it was around $ 1k for 40 workstations and a server - the basic deal is that symantec 's products just suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the average home user I would say that AVG Free or one of the other more innovative, free or low cost antivirus programs is going to give you as good or better protection than symantec, but the real advantage you'll see is that most of symantec's consumer products are overbearing and use far too many system resources - they really slow your system down, they can be a real pain in the ass to remove, and they have a history of conflicting with other software - and they know people know this, it took them a while to realize it and I think they finally noticed how successful AVG has become since about 2004 at attracting users with a free product that offered decent A/V protection without crippling their machines - I have noticed that they are now marketing "norton classic" (at least I think it's symantec,unless they have sold the rights to norton) for $14.99 per year as an "anti-virus that uses few system resources.
"The only symantec A/V product I have used that hasn't been annoying and counter-productive is their corporate version (at least in the early 00s); one of the ISPs I used to to run/manage used it on all of their servers and workstations and it seemed to not have the problems that their consumer offerings do.
Once I became familiar with AVG's free options and it came time to protect a smal to medium sized corporate network I decided to go with AVG's network edition - the cost was reasonable comparatively, I think it was around $1k for 40 workstations and a server - the basic deal is that symantec's products just suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579741</id>
	<title>Who protects us from Symantec?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246718760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I quit using Norton anything many years ago as they became bloated and seemed to be the cause of more problems for my wife's PC than she had without it. At the time it seemed impossible to remove Norton AV after it had been installed. Just like malware. This really annoys me as Norton Antivirus often comes on new PC's as a 6 month free trial. Even if Norton was free I would not use them.</p><p>With Firefox, No Script and Adblock Plus my wife has not had any problems with viruses/malware/trojans. I do have Avast on her computer which does not seem bloated and stays out of the way.</p><p>Free works just fine with some common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I quit using Norton anything many years ago as they became bloated and seemed to be the cause of more problems for my wife 's PC than she had without it .
At the time it seemed impossible to remove Norton AV after it had been installed .
Just like malware .
This really annoys me as Norton Antivirus often comes on new PC 's as a 6 month free trial .
Even if Norton was free I would not use them.With Firefox , No Script and Adblock Plus my wife has not had any problems with viruses/malware/trojans .
I do have Avast on her computer which does not seem bloated and stays out of the way.Free works just fine with some common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quit using Norton anything many years ago as they became bloated and seemed to be the cause of more problems for my wife's PC than she had without it.
At the time it seemed impossible to remove Norton AV after it had been installed.
Just like malware.
This really annoys me as Norton Antivirus often comes on new PC's as a 6 month free trial.
Even if Norton was free I would not use them.With Firefox, No Script and Adblock Plus my wife has not had any problems with viruses/malware/trojans.
I do have Avast on her computer which does not seem bloated and stays out of the way.Free works just fine with some common sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580203</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>orngjce223</author>
	<datestamp>1246723320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in actuality their vict^Wcostumers get pwned by exploitable holes in IE anydangway.</p></div><p>Yes, and their costumers get pwned all the time because they installed the AIEEE-brand faux fur ruffles instead of the fiery foxhair ruffles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in actuality their vict ^ Wcostumers get pwned by exploitable holes in IE anydangway.Yes , and their costumers get pwned all the time because they installed the AIEEE-brand faux fur ruffles instead of the fiery foxhair ruffles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in actuality their vict^Wcostumers get pwned by exploitable holes in IE anydangway.Yes, and their costumers get pwned all the time because they installed the AIEEE-brand faux fur ruffles instead of the fiery foxhair ruffles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581091</id>
	<title>How Unusual</title>
	<author>binaryseraph</author>
	<datestamp>1246730700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oddly enough the CEO of Ford warned people against using free cars. Evidently they have something to sell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough the CEO of Ford warned people against using free cars .
Evidently they have something to sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough the CEO of Ford warned people against using free cars.
Evidently they have something to sell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765</id>
	<title>Anything is better than Norton</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Symantec,</p><p>The reason you are steadily losing market share has less to do with the availability of reasonably good antivirus software for free, and more to do with the staggeringly awful quality of your own products. Norton Internet Security was so completely terrible, that not only did it fail to stop critical attacks, but it slowed down systems more than the worst available spyware infections. Removing those spyware infections was also easier than removing your software, because the uninstaller would fail more often than it would function. I began to keep the latest version of the Symantec removal tool in my kit because it was better to assume the uninstall would fail, and not bother to use it. Until I managed to get a significant portion of my clients away from your products, they paid me to fix problems with your software more often than any other single product by a factor of 10. At this point, even if your company came out with the perfect security product, I would advise my clients not to buy it purely based on past experience, because you do not deserve their money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Symantec,The reason you are steadily losing market share has less to do with the availability of reasonably good antivirus software for free , and more to do with the staggeringly awful quality of your own products .
Norton Internet Security was so completely terrible , that not only did it fail to stop critical attacks , but it slowed down systems more than the worst available spyware infections .
Removing those spyware infections was also easier than removing your software , because the uninstaller would fail more often than it would function .
I began to keep the latest version of the Symantec removal tool in my kit because it was better to assume the uninstall would fail , and not bother to use it .
Until I managed to get a significant portion of my clients away from your products , they paid me to fix problems with your software more often than any other single product by a factor of 10 .
At this point , even if your company came out with the perfect security product , I would advise my clients not to buy it purely based on past experience , because you do not deserve their money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Symantec,The reason you are steadily losing market share has less to do with the availability of reasonably good antivirus software for free, and more to do with the staggeringly awful quality of your own products.
Norton Internet Security was so completely terrible, that not only did it fail to stop critical attacks, but it slowed down systems more than the worst available spyware infections.
Removing those spyware infections was also easier than removing your software, because the uninstaller would fail more often than it would function.
I began to keep the latest version of the Symantec removal tool in my kit because it was better to assume the uninstall would fail, and not bother to use it.
Until I managed to get a significant portion of my clients away from your products, they paid me to fix problems with your software more often than any other single product by a factor of 10.
At this point, even if your company came out with the perfect security product, I would advise my clients not to buy it purely based on past experience, because you do not deserve their money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583961</id>
	<title>Protection?</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1246720860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Viruses are a user idiocy problem.  The only protection is to not let idiots use computers.  Who is going to protect us from the drain and data loss caused bye the anti[sic]-virus programs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Viruses are a user idiocy problem .
The only protection is to not let idiots use computers .
Who is going to protect us from the drain and data loss caused bye the anti [ sic ] -virus programs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viruses are a user idiocy problem.
The only protection is to not let idiots use computers.
Who is going to protect us from the drain and data loss caused bye the anti[sic]-virus programs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581967</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1246738800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yeah? Well I have a virus-repelling <em>rock</em>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah ?
Well I have a virus-repelling rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah?
Well I have a virus-repelling rock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581681</id>
	<title>And Microsoft warns against free Operating Systems</title>
	<author>amanjsingh</author>
	<datestamp>1246735380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>because of course, free OS's are very unsecure than Windows. No? lol</htmltext>
<tokenext>because of course , free OS 's are very unsecure than Windows .
No ? lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because of course, free OS's are very unsecure than Windows.
No? lol</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581535</id>
	<title>more problems then solutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246734240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so i worked for tech support, and here are the facts. I dealt with more spyware issues that norton didnt catch and adaware did then anything else, on another note, another large problem was norton/mcafee taking down computers cause its so bloated and full of worthless shit to give the illusion of security.</p><p>seriously, they should be worried, cause there product sucks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so i worked for tech support , and here are the facts .
I dealt with more spyware issues that norton didnt catch and adaware did then anything else , on another note , another large problem was norton/mcafee taking down computers cause its so bloated and full of worthless shit to give the illusion of security.seriously , they should be worried , cause there product sucks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so i worked for tech support, and here are the facts.
I dealt with more spyware issues that norton didnt catch and adaware did then anything else, on another note, another large problem was norton/mcafee taking down computers cause its so bloated and full of worthless shit to give the illusion of security.seriously, they should be worried, cause there product sucks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580577</id>
	<title>Yeah, those DNS queries were so dangerous</title>
	<author>Fencepost</author>
	<datestamp>1246726620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I stopped trusting Symantec/Norton for much of anything when one of my customers couldn't resolve names because Norton had decided that outbound DNS queries (or the responses to them) were malicious and needed to be blocked.<br><br>There may be a widening gap between what people understand and what they're facing, but I didn't see any sign that Norton was addressing that gap appropriately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped trusting Symantec/Norton for much of anything when one of my customers could n't resolve names because Norton had decided that outbound DNS queries ( or the responses to them ) were malicious and needed to be blocked.There may be a widening gap between what people understand and what they 're facing , but I did n't see any sign that Norton was addressing that gap appropriately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped trusting Symantec/Norton for much of anything when one of my customers couldn't resolve names because Norton had decided that outbound DNS queries (or the responses to them) were malicious and needed to be blocked.There may be a widening gap between what people understand and what they're facing, but I didn't see any sign that Norton was addressing that gap appropriately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583467</id>
	<title>Problem with Norton and Macaffee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246713300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are crappy products that have been historically disbled with relative easy by viruses and trojans.</p><p>I used to use DOS FPROT with pre-2k systems because I could boot to a 98se startup disk and repair stuff under windows.</p><p>However, now the only option is to use Avast, which has a boot time scheduler. I have yet to find anything that Avast can't tackle.</p><p>And for consumer use, it's free.</p><p>But Symantec and Macaffee make too much money on viruses to actually be good at securing your computer against viruses.</p><p>There may be other programs with boot time scheduler and real time scanning agents, but I've never found an antivirus as good as avast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are crappy products that have been historically disbled with relative easy by viruses and trojans.I used to use DOS FPROT with pre-2k systems because I could boot to a 98se startup disk and repair stuff under windows.However , now the only option is to use Avast , which has a boot time scheduler .
I have yet to find anything that Avast ca n't tackle.And for consumer use , it 's free.But Symantec and Macaffee make too much money on viruses to actually be good at securing your computer against viruses.There may be other programs with boot time scheduler and real time scanning agents , but I 've never found an antivirus as good as avast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are crappy products that have been historically disbled with relative easy by viruses and trojans.I used to use DOS FPROT with pre-2k systems because I could boot to a 98se startup disk and repair stuff under windows.However, now the only option is to use Avast, which has a boot time scheduler.
I have yet to find anything that Avast can't tackle.And for consumer use, it's free.But Symantec and Macaffee make too much money on viruses to actually be good at securing your computer against viruses.There may be other programs with boot time scheduler and real time scanning agents, but I've never found an antivirus as good as avast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581559</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1246734420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ubisoft claims playing cracked games can cause your nuts to fall off.</p></div><p>I <b>wondered</b> why that happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubisoft claims playing cracked games can cause your nuts to fall off.I wondered why that happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubisoft claims playing cracked games can cause your nuts to fall off.I wondered why that happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579953</id>
	<title>They Have A Point</title>
	<author>senorpoco</author>
	<datestamp>1246721100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, all free antivirus sucks, so does all paid for software.
However there is a magical amulet which will protect you from all computer attacks, I happen to be selling these items for a very reasonable price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , all free antivirus sucks , so does all paid for software .
However there is a magical amulet which will protect you from all computer attacks , I happen to be selling these items for a very reasonable price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, all free antivirus sucks, so does all paid for software.
However there is a magical amulet which will protect you from all computer attacks, I happen to be selling these items for a very reasonable price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583317</id>
	<title>The Unfortunate Truth?</title>
	<author>Captain Climate</author>
	<datestamp>1246711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>An executive warning against the lower priced and free products of competitors is not surprising to anyone.  As one who has been paid to REMOVE Symantec products from customer machines because of the huge performance hit I do not havegood comments to say about the actual security products.

I do use AVAST and find that it works really well.  My own belief continues to be that the best defenses against the bad guys are to avoid working as an Administrator and to use THE HUMAN BRAIN to avoid opening unsolicited/unexpected attachments.  Using Firefox and Linus helps also.

Speaking of Linux and other open source platforms....    In spite of all of the real good Microsoft has produced in the software realm I am a firm believer that they should focus on creating SOFTWARE and leave platform development in terms of servers and clients to community efforts.  If a virus/malware author attacks Windows then we are dependent on Microsoft and Vendors like Symantec to develop solutions.  If there is an attack against Linus, for instance, the author is instantly outnumbered and outclassed by the army of community talent which would act to stop them.

On my Windows XP system,  NO ONE including me runs as Admin.  NO ONE is allowed to use Internet Explorer until I observe better security against Malware.   NO ONE is allowed to download or open any email attachments which are unexpected or are programs without consulting me first.   On my Linux system I have almost nothing to worry about......</htmltext>
<tokenext>An executive warning against the lower priced and free products of competitors is not surprising to anyone .
As one who has been paid to REMOVE Symantec products from customer machines because of the huge performance hit I do not havegood comments to say about the actual security products .
I do use AVAST and find that it works really well .
My own belief continues to be that the best defenses against the bad guys are to avoid working as an Administrator and to use THE HUMAN BRAIN to avoid opening unsolicited/unexpected attachments .
Using Firefox and Linus helps also .
Speaking of Linux and other open source platforms.... In spite of all of the real good Microsoft has produced in the software realm I am a firm believer that they should focus on creating SOFTWARE and leave platform development in terms of servers and clients to community efforts .
If a virus/malware author attacks Windows then we are dependent on Microsoft and Vendors like Symantec to develop solutions .
If there is an attack against Linus , for instance , the author is instantly outnumbered and outclassed by the army of community talent which would act to stop them .
On my Windows XP system , NO ONE including me runs as Admin .
NO ONE is allowed to use Internet Explorer until I observe better security against Malware .
NO ONE is allowed to download or open any email attachments which are unexpected or are programs without consulting me first .
On my Linux system I have almost nothing to worry about..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An executive warning against the lower priced and free products of competitors is not surprising to anyone.
As one who has been paid to REMOVE Symantec products from customer machines because of the huge performance hit I do not havegood comments to say about the actual security products.
I do use AVAST and find that it works really well.
My own belief continues to be that the best defenses against the bad guys are to avoid working as an Administrator and to use THE HUMAN BRAIN to avoid opening unsolicited/unexpected attachments.
Using Firefox and Linus helps also.
Speaking of Linux and other open source platforms....    In spite of all of the real good Microsoft has produced in the software realm I am a firm believer that they should focus on creating SOFTWARE and leave platform development in terms of servers and clients to community efforts.
If a virus/malware author attacks Windows then we are dependent on Microsoft and Vendors like Symantec to develop solutions.
If there is an attack against Linus, for instance, the author is instantly outnumbered and outclassed by the army of community talent which would act to stop them.
On my Windows XP system,  NO ONE including me runs as Admin.
NO ONE is allowed to use Internet Explorer until I observe better security against Malware.
NO ONE is allowed to download or open any email attachments which are unexpected or are programs without consulting me first.
On my Linux system I have almost nothing to worry about......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579871</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>uxbn\_kuribo</author>
	<datestamp>1246720140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not? It's been working for McAfee for 20 years now. I mean, the amount of fearmongering that the antivirus industry has perpetrated is staggering. True, they do it because it works--- Look at how the Freedom Act got passed after the 9/11 and terrorism fearmongering.

If you make people afraid, and offer them a solution, many will meekly follow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
It 's been working for McAfee for 20 years now .
I mean , the amount of fearmongering that the antivirus industry has perpetrated is staggering .
True , they do it because it works--- Look at how the Freedom Act got passed after the 9/11 and terrorism fearmongering .
If you make people afraid , and offer them a solution , many will meekly follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
It's been working for McAfee for 20 years now.
I mean, the amount of fearmongering that the antivirus industry has perpetrated is staggering.
True, they do it because it works--- Look at how the Freedom Act got passed after the 9/11 and terrorism fearmongering.
If you make people afraid, and offer them a solution, many will meekly follow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579919</id>
	<title>Re:Be Afraid! Buy Our Product!</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1246720620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Price, convenience and effect on system performance. The button to make windows stop checking for antivirus wins on all three.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Price , convenience and effect on system performance .
The button to make windows stop checking for antivirus wins on all three .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Price, convenience and effect on system performance.
The button to make windows stop checking for antivirus wins on all three.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580745</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>Sfing\_ter</author>
	<datestamp>1246728060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's their problem - the malware/virus guys have been working against their products for so long now, they KNOW how they work, and with the level of embededness these programs have in the operating system, the m/v guys have figured out now all they have to do is exploit the security software - they can handily shut it off while making it appear to the user it is still on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ahem... and do what they want. Having cleaned some very nasty stuff off of both Symantec's and McAfee's premiere CONSUMER products that were up to date and "working" it really makes you wonder just wtf! Of course this make the clients REALLY angry when you tell them the product they just bought/"LICENSED" for 2 more years at a DISCOUNT price of $80 a piece of crap and allowed the miscreant malware to molest their system. Why oh why do they NEVER call the company they just paid for support - because the AV Corp tells them TO GO ONLINE AND FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THEIR WEBSITE - in most cases the sites are blocked<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaah.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/faceplant on desktop/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's their problem - the malware/virus guys have been working against their products for so long now , they KNOW how they work , and with the level of embededness these programs have in the operating system , the m/v guys have figured out now all they have to do is exploit the security software - they can handily shut it off while making it appear to the user it is still on ... ahem... and do what they want .
Having cleaned some very nasty stuff off of both Symantec 's and McAfee 's premiere CONSUMER products that were up to date and " working " it really makes you wonder just wtf !
Of course this make the clients REALLY angry when you tell them the product they just bought/ " LICENSED " for 2 more years at a DISCOUNT price of $ 80 a piece of crap and allowed the miscreant malware to molest their system .
Why oh why do they NEVER call the company they just paid for support - because the AV Corp tells them TO GO ONLINE AND FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THEIR WEBSITE - in most cases the sites are blocked ... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaah. /faceplant on desktop/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's their problem - the malware/virus guys have been working against their products for so long now, they KNOW how they work, and with the level of embededness these programs have in the operating system, the m/v guys have figured out now all they have to do is exploit the security software - they can handily shut it off while making it appear to the user it is still on ... ahem... and do what they want.
Having cleaned some very nasty stuff off of both Symantec's and McAfee's premiere CONSUMER products that were up to date and "working" it really makes you wonder just wtf!
Of course this make the clients REALLY angry when you tell them the product they just bought/"LICENSED" for 2 more years at a DISCOUNT price of $80 a piece of crap and allowed the miscreant malware to molest their system.
Why oh why do they NEVER call the company they just paid for support - because the AV Corp tells them TO GO ONLINE AND FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THEIR WEBSITE - in most cases the sites are blocked ... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaah. /faceplant on desktop/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581565</id>
	<title>I've said this before...</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1246734420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peter Norton should sue Symantec for defamation of character.</p><p>The original Norton Utilities were everything that Symantec's Norton $WHATEVER isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peter Norton should sue Symantec for defamation of character.The original Norton Utilities were everything that Symantec 's Norton $ WHATEVER is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peter Norton should sue Symantec for defamation of character.The original Norton Utilities were everything that Symantec's Norton $WHATEVER isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584049</id>
	<title>Symantec Trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about anyone else but if I were to rely on Symantec's on advice normally, I'd be deleting files left, right and centre because of it's false positive rate.... not sure why I'm going to believe them now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about anyone else but if I were to rely on Symantec 's on advice normally , I 'd be deleting files left , right and centre because of it 's false positive rate.... not sure why I 'm going to believe them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about anyone else but if I were to rely on Symantec's on advice normally, I'd be deleting files left, right and centre because of it's false positive rate.... not sure why I'm going to believe them now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579683</id>
	<title>But, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246718220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear SimonTech,</p><p>What if your AV was free because you stole a license from work?</p><p>Best,</p><p>A.C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear SimonTech,What if your AV was free because you stole a license from work ? Best,A.C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear SimonTech,What if your AV was free because you stole a license from work?Best,A.C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28590547</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than Norton</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246810800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen Jesus!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen Jesus ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen Jesus!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579827</id>
	<title>Simple Solution : Stay Away From M$ Windoze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By staying away from M$ Windoze, the biggest virus of all time, one does not need any anti-malware software.  M$ junk has so many security holes as opposed to GNU/Linux and free software.  M$ addicts deserve to receive malware as well as having their identities stolen for using M$ junk.</p><p>--<br>Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.<br>Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By staying away from M $ Windoze , the biggest virus of all time , one does not need any anti-malware software .
M $ junk has so many security holes as opposed to GNU/Linux and free software .
M $ addicts deserve to receive malware as well as having their identities stolen for using M $ junk.--Friends do n't help friends install M $ junk.Friends do assist M $ addicted friends in committing suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By staying away from M$ Windoze, the biggest virus of all time, one does not need any anti-malware software.
M$ junk has so many security holes as opposed to GNU/Linux and free software.
M$ addicts deserve to receive malware as well as having their identities stolen for using M$ junk.--Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580501</id>
	<title>Anti.virus, a piece of crap, but needed.</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1246726020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work with anti-virus solutions for 10 years now. I used everything, but for professional environment mostly Trend-Micro. Probably it is the best choice, but I will never install this piece of crap on my home pc.<br><br>Most of the anti-viruses are bloat crap, doing 100 not needed tasks and eating memory in the spare time. Often their needed crap will shut down a machine quite often, be it an unnecessary and unplanned scan while the server is under load or by triggering something in the network code to make the network card stop working.<br>Even when they work, they can remove the old viruses at best and maybe warn you when you get infected by a new one. Of course if it is any good, you will have to clean it manually.<br><br>The last time I checked the anti-virus client it was eating more RAM then a clean Windows XP installation, stop this crap.<br><br>Sorry for my rant, I guess if they worked as they should they would never need me, so in a sort of ironic way, I'm glad we have a fucked up situation.<br><br>P.S: Symantec is the worst of all, they were crap with their first product and they never managed to give us one product not pulled from a CEO ass.<br>P.S.S: The last time I installed XP was in 2004 and is still running now, I never used anti-viruses, because I never trusted M$ to handle my security in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work with anti-virus solutions for 10 years now .
I used everything , but for professional environment mostly Trend-Micro .
Probably it is the best choice , but I will never install this piece of crap on my home pc.Most of the anti-viruses are bloat crap , doing 100 not needed tasks and eating memory in the spare time .
Often their needed crap will shut down a machine quite often , be it an unnecessary and unplanned scan while the server is under load or by triggering something in the network code to make the network card stop working.Even when they work , they can remove the old viruses at best and maybe warn you when you get infected by a new one .
Of course if it is any good , you will have to clean it manually.The last time I checked the anti-virus client it was eating more RAM then a clean Windows XP installation , stop this crap.Sorry for my rant , I guess if they worked as they should they would never need me , so in a sort of ironic way , I 'm glad we have a fucked up situation.P.S : Symantec is the worst of all , they were crap with their first product and they never managed to give us one product not pulled from a CEO ass.P.S.S : The last time I installed XP was in 2004 and is still running now , I never used anti-viruses , because I never trusted M $ to handle my security in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work with anti-virus solutions for 10 years now.
I used everything, but for professional environment mostly Trend-Micro.
Probably it is the best choice, but I will never install this piece of crap on my home pc.Most of the anti-viruses are bloat crap, doing 100 not needed tasks and eating memory in the spare time.
Often their needed crap will shut down a machine quite often, be it an unnecessary and unplanned scan while the server is under load or by triggering something in the network code to make the network card stop working.Even when they work, they can remove the old viruses at best and maybe warn you when you get infected by a new one.
Of course if it is any good, you will have to clean it manually.The last time I checked the anti-virus client it was eating more RAM then a clean Windows XP installation, stop this crap.Sorry for my rant, I guess if they worked as they should they would never need me, so in a sort of ironic way, I'm glad we have a fucked up situation.P.S: Symantec is the worst of all, they were crap with their first product and they never managed to give us one product not pulled from a CEO ass.P.S.S: The last time I installed XP was in 2004 and is still running now, I never used anti-viruses, because I never trusted M$ to handle my security in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579723</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>The Snowman</author>
	<datestamp>1246718640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that most for-pay software sucks in this regard, just look at any corporate network. Most computers have terrible performance and still wind up spreading worms and viruses.</p><p>I think the key here is that the company is telling us we need his product. In other news, a consultant came to the conclusion that we need more consulting, GM told me I need a new car, and McDonald's told me I need a McBurger. No shit, a company telling me I need their products? Nothing to see here, move along, look for an unbiased neutral party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that most for-pay software sucks in this regard , just look at any corporate network .
Most computers have terrible performance and still wind up spreading worms and viruses.I think the key here is that the company is telling us we need his product .
In other news , a consultant came to the conclusion that we need more consulting , GM told me I need a new car , and McDonald 's told me I need a McBurger .
No shit , a company telling me I need their products ?
Nothing to see here , move along , look for an unbiased neutral party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that most for-pay software sucks in this regard, just look at any corporate network.
Most computers have terrible performance and still wind up spreading worms and viruses.I think the key here is that the company is telling us we need his product.
In other news, a consultant came to the conclusion that we need more consulting, GM told me I need a new car, and McDonald's told me I need a McBurger.
No shit, a company telling me I need their products?
Nothing to see here, move along, look for an unbiased neutral party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581509</id>
	<title>The problem is, Symantec saying this</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246733940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For people who has a clue about the jungle out there, a free AV may really work except some tools like Microsoft's shameless thing. I wouldn't choose it just for the sole reason of protesting that OS vendor who STILL doesn't warn user about empty pwd, even on Win 7 RC. There are way more advanced tools out there free for home use and they are really fine. For example Avast antivirus.</p><p>Issue begins when you deal with people who has no clue about the jungle out there and always happy to enter it, without any kind of clue. The ''click happy'' people. For that, you need remote management, advanced heuristics engine and really low CPU and memory load, reporting etc. I keep installing/buying Kaspersky for that purpose.</p><p>If you are ready to give up some convenience and ease of use, a secured Windows and something like clamav-daemon which will just watch mail and browser downloads will be more than enough. In these times when companies will happily distribute trojans and viruses with USB keys and even digital photo frames, 'no antivirus' is not really a solution.</p><p>I wished someone other than Symantec, no matter whoever they are told about the distinction between free and paid software regarding security. As it is the Symantec, no matter what they say will be ignored and flamed. Similar thing on OS X AV scene which Symantec, even if they try to code a real mac product these days, generally ignored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For people who has a clue about the jungle out there , a free AV may really work except some tools like Microsoft 's shameless thing .
I would n't choose it just for the sole reason of protesting that OS vendor who STILL does n't warn user about empty pwd , even on Win 7 RC .
There are way more advanced tools out there free for home use and they are really fine .
For example Avast antivirus.Issue begins when you deal with people who has no clue about the jungle out there and always happy to enter it , without any kind of clue .
The ''click happy' ' people .
For that , you need remote management , advanced heuristics engine and really low CPU and memory load , reporting etc .
I keep installing/buying Kaspersky for that purpose.If you are ready to give up some convenience and ease of use , a secured Windows and something like clamav-daemon which will just watch mail and browser downloads will be more than enough .
In these times when companies will happily distribute trojans and viruses with USB keys and even digital photo frames , 'no antivirus ' is not really a solution.I wished someone other than Symantec , no matter whoever they are told about the distinction between free and paid software regarding security .
As it is the Symantec , no matter what they say will be ignored and flamed .
Similar thing on OS X AV scene which Symantec , even if they try to code a real mac product these days , generally ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For people who has a clue about the jungle out there, a free AV may really work except some tools like Microsoft's shameless thing.
I wouldn't choose it just for the sole reason of protesting that OS vendor who STILL doesn't warn user about empty pwd, even on Win 7 RC.
There are way more advanced tools out there free for home use and they are really fine.
For example Avast antivirus.Issue begins when you deal with people who has no clue about the jungle out there and always happy to enter it, without any kind of clue.
The ''click happy'' people.
For that, you need remote management, advanced heuristics engine and really low CPU and memory load, reporting etc.
I keep installing/buying Kaspersky for that purpose.If you are ready to give up some convenience and ease of use, a secured Windows and something like clamav-daemon which will just watch mail and browser downloads will be more than enough.
In these times when companies will happily distribute trojans and viruses with USB keys and even digital photo frames, 'no antivirus' is not really a solution.I wished someone other than Symantec, no matter whoever they are told about the distinction between free and paid software regarding security.
As it is the Symantec, no matter what they say will be ignored and flamed.
Similar thing on OS X AV scene which Symantec, even if they try to code a real mac product these days, generally ignored.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28660237</id>
	<title>Re:Parent=Outdated information...</title>
	<author>jp10558</author>
	<datestamp>1247329080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>free stuff is either nagware that wants you to upgrade to a pay version or it isn't an integrated suite</i><br>Well, unless you're talking about Comodo Internet Security...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>free stuff is either nagware that wants you to upgrade to a pay version or it is n't an integrated suiteWell , unless you 're talking about Comodo Internet Security.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>free stuff is either nagware that wants you to upgrade to a pay version or it isn't an integrated suiteWell, unless you're talking about Comodo Internet Security...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</id>
	<title>Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Raindance</author>
	<datestamp>1246717860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there were any high-quality for-pay alternatives, I'd say he might have a point.</p><p>Unfortunately, most antivirus software sucks, with Symantec more or less epitomizing how good ideas on paper can turn into terrible/buggy/bloated security software that actually <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12990213" title="msn.com">increases your exposure</a> [msn.com] since it adds another node malicious code can attack. Symantec's argument-from-assertion notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between antivirus software being for-pay and higher quality.</p><p>From my experience, there's really bad antivirus software (such as Norton, which I have zero confidence in and would never let touch my machine), and slightly less bad antivirus software. What went wrong? Why does this industry suck so badly? Anyone have any insight?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were any high-quality for-pay alternatives , I 'd say he might have a point.Unfortunately , most antivirus software sucks , with Symantec more or less epitomizing how good ideas on paper can turn into terrible/buggy/bloated security software that actually increases your exposure [ msn.com ] since it adds another node malicious code can attack .
Symantec 's argument-from-assertion notwithstanding , there does n't seem to be any correlation between antivirus software being for-pay and higher quality.From my experience , there 's really bad antivirus software ( such as Norton , which I have zero confidence in and would never let touch my machine ) , and slightly less bad antivirus software .
What went wrong ?
Why does this industry suck so badly ?
Anyone have any insight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were any high-quality for-pay alternatives, I'd say he might have a point.Unfortunately, most antivirus software sucks, with Symantec more or less epitomizing how good ideas on paper can turn into terrible/buggy/bloated security software that actually increases your exposure [msn.com] since it adds another node malicious code can attack.
Symantec's argument-from-assertion notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between antivirus software being for-pay and higher quality.From my experience, there's really bad antivirus software (such as Norton, which I have zero confidence in and would never let touch my machine), and slightly less bad antivirus software.
What went wrong?
Why does this industry suck so badly?
Anyone have any insight?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582461</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1246700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sort of grateful for the 'Endpoint Protection' kludge they installed at work.  Apparently they decided that it's far better than the McAfee they were pushing out onto the desktops.  So much better that something seems to have gotten configured in the firewall to disable it.  I turned off the 'proxy' in Internet Explorer and am no longer blocked from any of the huge number of sites that are blocked at the proxy.  There used to be zero connectivity to the Internet unless you went through that proxy.  I also recently discovered they're no longer blocking Port 22.  Putty now works and I can log onto my Freeshell account from work.</p><p>So, if 'Endpoint Protection' gives them the confidence to not be nearly as anal as they used to be, all power to it.  Even though it's an immense load on the machine when it decides to schedule a scan.  The first few weeks after they rolled it out, before the boneheads in charge got it together, it was scheduling a full scan of my machine on Thursday afternoons at about 1:00 pm.  Gee thanx.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sort of grateful for the 'Endpoint Protection ' kludge they installed at work .
Apparently they decided that it 's far better than the McAfee they were pushing out onto the desktops .
So much better that something seems to have gotten configured in the firewall to disable it .
I turned off the 'proxy ' in Internet Explorer and am no longer blocked from any of the huge number of sites that are blocked at the proxy .
There used to be zero connectivity to the Internet unless you went through that proxy .
I also recently discovered they 're no longer blocking Port 22 .
Putty now works and I can log onto my Freeshell account from work.So , if 'Endpoint Protection ' gives them the confidence to not be nearly as anal as they used to be , all power to it .
Even though it 's an immense load on the machine when it decides to schedule a scan .
The first few weeks after they rolled it out , before the boneheads in charge got it together , it was scheduling a full scan of my machine on Thursday afternoons at about 1 : 00 pm .
Gee thanx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sort of grateful for the 'Endpoint Protection' kludge they installed at work.
Apparently they decided that it's far better than the McAfee they were pushing out onto the desktops.
So much better that something seems to have gotten configured in the firewall to disable it.
I turned off the 'proxy' in Internet Explorer and am no longer blocked from any of the huge number of sites that are blocked at the proxy.
There used to be zero connectivity to the Internet unless you went through that proxy.
I also recently discovered they're no longer blocking Port 22.
Putty now works and I can log onto my Freeshell account from work.So, if 'Endpoint Protection' gives them the confidence to not be nearly as anal as they used to be, all power to it.
Even though it's an immense load on the machine when it decides to schedule a scan.
The first few weeks after they rolled it out, before the boneheads in charge got it together, it was scheduling a full scan of my machine on Thursday afternoons at about 1:00 pm.
Gee thanx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583233</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1246710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are two reasons:
<ul>
<li>Determining if a program is a virus is equivalent to the <a href="http://claymania.com/halting-problem.html" title="claymania.com">Halting Problem</a> [claymania.com]. Given that, antivirus apps use heuristics instead, which unlike algorithms proven to be correct, sometimes give the wrong answer, but in general can decide with an acceptable degree of certainty.</li><li>It's hard to find figures for this (so, to the pedants out there, yes, I am pulling this out of my ass), but I suspect the rate at which malicious software is being written is increasing, because there are real financial incentives for virus-writers now.  So the time cost in determining whether a given heuristic will give false positives or not is going through the roof.  It's not surprising that AV vendors cut corners, or just don't do it right.  How many possible variations of Windows XP SP3 do you think there are?</li></ul><p>
I personally think that AV is in a losing battle.  While many here have pointed out that an end-user can be "gamed" into installing malicious software in a theoretically secure system (a problem that will probably never be solved), it doesn't change the fact that Windows is particularly easy to write viruses for.  My personal choice is: don't run Windows.  There are some security precautions I must take with Linux and OpenBSD, but in general, I mostly need to worry about whether <em>I</em> am an idiot&mdash;not whether my computer is failing me behind my back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two reasons : Determining if a program is a virus is equivalent to the Halting Problem [ claymania.com ] .
Given that , antivirus apps use heuristics instead , which unlike algorithms proven to be correct , sometimes give the wrong answer , but in general can decide with an acceptable degree of certainty.It 's hard to find figures for this ( so , to the pedants out there , yes , I am pulling this out of my ass ) , but I suspect the rate at which malicious software is being written is increasing , because there are real financial incentives for virus-writers now .
So the time cost in determining whether a given heuristic will give false positives or not is going through the roof .
It 's not surprising that AV vendors cut corners , or just do n't do it right .
How many possible variations of Windows XP SP3 do you think there are ?
I personally think that AV is in a losing battle .
While many here have pointed out that an end-user can be " gamed " into installing malicious software in a theoretically secure system ( a problem that will probably never be solved ) , it does n't change the fact that Windows is particularly easy to write viruses for .
My personal choice is : do n't run Windows .
There are some security precautions I must take with Linux and OpenBSD , but in general , I mostly need to worry about whether I am an idiot    not whether my computer is failing me behind my back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two reasons:

Determining if a program is a virus is equivalent to the Halting Problem [claymania.com].
Given that, antivirus apps use heuristics instead, which unlike algorithms proven to be correct, sometimes give the wrong answer, but in general can decide with an acceptable degree of certainty.It's hard to find figures for this (so, to the pedants out there, yes, I am pulling this out of my ass), but I suspect the rate at which malicious software is being written is increasing, because there are real financial incentives for virus-writers now.
So the time cost in determining whether a given heuristic will give false positives or not is going through the roof.
It's not surprising that AV vendors cut corners, or just don't do it right.
How many possible variations of Windows XP SP3 do you think there are?
I personally think that AV is in a losing battle.
While many here have pointed out that an end-user can be "gamed" into installing malicious software in a theoretically secure system (a problem that will probably never be solved), it doesn't change the fact that Windows is particularly easy to write viruses for.
My personal choice is: don't run Windows.
There are some security precautions I must take with Linux and OpenBSD, but in general, I mostly need to worry about whether I am an idiot—not whether my computer is failing me behind my back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580511</id>
	<title>stopped using anti-virus years ago.</title>
	<author>markringen</author>
	<datestamp>1246726080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>stopped using anti-virus software years ago, because I've discovered in all reality it's for idiots who don't know how to use a computer...
i haven't ever had a virus (end of story).</htmltext>
<tokenext>stopped using anti-virus software years ago , because I 've discovered in all reality it 's for idiots who do n't know how to use a computer.. . i have n't ever had a virus ( end of story ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stopped using anti-virus software years ago, because I've discovered in all reality it's for idiots who don't know how to use a computer...
i haven't ever had a virus (end of story).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582713</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1246703580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The vast majority of people in the decision level ring in corporate IT these days were around at the nitty gritty level when Norton AV was a decent product. So they remember that and (likely) have little first-hand experience with the crap it's become due to Symantec.</p><p>There's also just sheer momentum and advertising. Symantec is the 900lb gorilla, so everyone's aware of them. License upgrades are sometimes cheaper/more easily rationalized than switching to something else (especially when "your employees are skilled with Symantec, though!" reaches an exec's ear).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of people in the decision level ring in corporate IT these days were around at the nitty gritty level when Norton AV was a decent product .
So they remember that and ( likely ) have little first-hand experience with the crap it 's become due to Symantec.There 's also just sheer momentum and advertising .
Symantec is the 900lb gorilla , so everyone 's aware of them .
License upgrades are sometimes cheaper/more easily rationalized than switching to something else ( especially when " your employees are skilled with Symantec , though !
" reaches an exec 's ear ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of people in the decision level ring in corporate IT these days were around at the nitty gritty level when Norton AV was a decent product.
So they remember that and (likely) have little first-hand experience with the crap it's become due to Symantec.There's also just sheer momentum and advertising.
Symantec is the 900lb gorilla, so everyone's aware of them.
License upgrades are sometimes cheaper/more easily rationalized than switching to something else (especially when "your employees are skilled with Symantec, though!
" reaches an exec's ear).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581335</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246732620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a global revolt against the mafia style of "protection" that in most cases doesn't work. Antivirus software has a vested interest in having malware to defend against, otherwise there would be no need for them. If the ISP's and govenments of the world were monitarily liable for malware it would stop tommorow. But the billion dollar industry of malware protection doesn't want that.</p><p>I have for the last several years run both free antivirus software and security suits for company provided hardware. I ahve never had a problem but 3 out of 4 laptops turned to brick or needed fresh installs. What say you McAfee?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a global revolt against the mafia style of " protection " that in most cases does n't work .
Antivirus software has a vested interest in having malware to defend against , otherwise there would be no need for them .
If the ISP 's and govenments of the world were monitarily liable for malware it would stop tommorow .
But the billion dollar industry of malware protection does n't want that.I have for the last several years run both free antivirus software and security suits for company provided hardware .
I ahve never had a problem but 3 out of 4 laptops turned to brick or needed fresh installs .
What say you McAfee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a global revolt against the mafia style of "protection" that in most cases doesn't work.
Antivirus software has a vested interest in having malware to defend against, otherwise there would be no need for them.
If the ISP's and govenments of the world were monitarily liable for malware it would stop tommorow.
But the billion dollar industry of malware protection doesn't want that.I have for the last several years run both free antivirus software and security suits for company provided hardware.
I ahve never had a problem but 3 out of 4 laptops turned to brick or needed fresh installs.
What say you McAfee?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580765</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246728300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE is fine.  IE6 before the version with XP SP 2 is a cesspool.  Indeed, it was bad enough that I can see why the reputation lingers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE is fine .
IE6 before the version with XP SP 2 is a cesspool .
Indeed , it was bad enough that I can see why the reputation lingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE is fine.
IE6 before the version with XP SP 2 is a cesspool.
Indeed, it was bad enough that I can see why the reputation lingers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579833</id>
	<title>free.avg.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...just download the software from free.avg.com, and then make sure your built-in windows firewall is working. The advantages of having updates without a serial number blacklisting are too big to ignore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...just download the software from free.avg.com , and then make sure your built-in windows firewall is working .
The advantages of having updates without a serial number blacklisting are too big to ignore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...just download the software from free.avg.com, and then make sure your built-in windows firewall is working.
The advantages of having updates without a serial number blacklisting are too big to ignore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581345</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than Norton</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246732800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My clients have trouble with Symantec, too. Usually I turn off the firewall portion of Norton because it cripples their internet use. Then they do an update and viola, the firewall is turned on again so I have to turn if off again. Most of my clients have small networks behind a firewall. I like the windows firewall for that can be managed with AD.</p><p>CA is just goofy with the expiration date being out of wack all the time. Just recently have I seen that improve after years of use.</p><p>McAfee turned me off years ago with all the logging into McAfee.com to do updates.</p><p>It is a pain in the butt to pick one today. The corporate stuff is too much for a 5 user network and the home user stuff is too bloated. Most are letting something in, so in the end it is just a crap shoot. The state of AV is horrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My clients have trouble with Symantec , too .
Usually I turn off the firewall portion of Norton because it cripples their internet use .
Then they do an update and viola , the firewall is turned on again so I have to turn if off again .
Most of my clients have small networks behind a firewall .
I like the windows firewall for that can be managed with AD.CA is just goofy with the expiration date being out of wack all the time .
Just recently have I seen that improve after years of use.McAfee turned me off years ago with all the logging into McAfee.com to do updates.It is a pain in the butt to pick one today .
The corporate stuff is too much for a 5 user network and the home user stuff is too bloated .
Most are letting something in , so in the end it is just a crap shoot .
The state of AV is horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My clients have trouble with Symantec, too.
Usually I turn off the firewall portion of Norton because it cripples their internet use.
Then they do an update and viola, the firewall is turned on again so I have to turn if off again.
Most of my clients have small networks behind a firewall.
I like the windows firewall for that can be managed with AD.CA is just goofy with the expiration date being out of wack all the time.
Just recently have I seen that improve after years of use.McAfee turned me off years ago with all the logging into McAfee.com to do updates.It is a pain in the butt to pick one today.
The corporate stuff is too much for a 5 user network and the home user stuff is too bloated.
Most are letting something in, so in the end it is just a crap shoot.
The state of AV is horrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579843</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I've been using Norton IS 2009, and they have made great improvements on getting rid of bugs and really brought the size down. They also keep less of a draw on system resources, and it's been very effective at removing a lot of infections, some big, some small.

The best thing it does is watch what comes in to stop a virus before it is renamed by the browser after downloading. I have noticed a huge difference in how my mom's computer handles virii with a free copy of AVG or something, and how my computer handles virii.

I think that the problem with the industry is people expect these AntiVirus programs to protect them wholly, where in fact, it takes some initiative on the user side to know when something is a scam, or a virus, or complete malware. When these expectations aren't met, it gets a bad name, and it all just goes downhill from there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 've been using Norton IS 2009 , and they have made great improvements on getting rid of bugs and really brought the size down .
They also keep less of a draw on system resources , and it 's been very effective at removing a lot of infections , some big , some small .
The best thing it does is watch what comes in to stop a virus before it is renamed by the browser after downloading .
I have noticed a huge difference in how my mom 's computer handles virii with a free copy of AVG or something , and how my computer handles virii .
I think that the problem with the industry is people expect these AntiVirus programs to protect them wholly , where in fact , it takes some initiative on the user side to know when something is a scam , or a virus , or complete malware .
When these expectations are n't met , it gets a bad name , and it all just goes downhill from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I've been using Norton IS 2009, and they have made great improvements on getting rid of bugs and really brought the size down.
They also keep less of a draw on system resources, and it's been very effective at removing a lot of infections, some big, some small.
The best thing it does is watch what comes in to stop a virus before it is renamed by the browser after downloading.
I have noticed a huge difference in how my mom's computer handles virii with a free copy of AVG or something, and how my computer handles virii.
I think that the problem with the industry is people expect these AntiVirus programs to protect them wholly, where in fact, it takes some initiative on the user side to know when something is a scam, or a virus, or complete malware.
When these expectations aren't met, it gets a bad name, and it all just goes downhill from there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583525</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>greentshirt</author>
	<datestamp>1246713960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While (ironically) Symantec's products aren't much better, I wouldn't rely on a free antivirus product either. Especially AVG *shiver*.

Right now Kaspersky seems to be doing a very good job, but I find relying on one brand / product when it comes to utility software is a little foolish. Too often the product gets bloated or the developers stop investing as much into development or something better comes along. I pay for my antivirus and every year I do a little research before buying another subscription.

Just as it is true that opensource and freeware softwares are not inherently worse or less powerful than software you have to pay for, it is also true that they are not inherently better or more powerful either, and I don't understand how this statement by a software company CEO is deemed newsworthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While ( ironically ) Symantec 's products are n't much better , I would n't rely on a free antivirus product either .
Especially AVG * shiver * .
Right now Kaspersky seems to be doing a very good job , but I find relying on one brand / product when it comes to utility software is a little foolish .
Too often the product gets bloated or the developers stop investing as much into development or something better comes along .
I pay for my antivirus and every year I do a little research before buying another subscription .
Just as it is true that opensource and freeware softwares are not inherently worse or less powerful than software you have to pay for , it is also true that they are not inherently better or more powerful either , and I do n't understand how this statement by a software company CEO is deemed newsworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While (ironically) Symantec's products aren't much better, I wouldn't rely on a free antivirus product either.
Especially AVG *shiver*.
Right now Kaspersky seems to be doing a very good job, but I find relying on one brand / product when it comes to utility software is a little foolish.
Too often the product gets bloated or the developers stop investing as much into development or something better comes along.
I pay for my antivirus and every year I do a little research before buying another subscription.
Just as it is true that opensource and freeware softwares are not inherently worse or less powerful than software you have to pay for, it is also true that they are not inherently better or more powerful either, and I don't understand how this statement by a software company CEO is deemed newsworthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580111</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what this means is that the McAfee antivirus is so thorough it even finds trojans and viruses that MS ships. Symantec's product manager is right!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what this means is that the McAfee antivirus is so thorough it even finds trojans and viruses that MS ships .
Symantec 's product manager is right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what this means is that the McAfee antivirus is so thorough it even finds trojans and viruses that MS ships.
Symantec's product manager is right!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579645</id>
	<title>I don't even use antivirus...</title>
	<author>Bourdain</author>
	<datestamp>1246717920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>except the one at www.virustotal.com when on rare occasion I encounter a suspicious file</htmltext>
<tokenext>except the one at www.virustotal.com when on rare occasion I encounter a suspicious file</tokentext>
<sentencetext>except the one at www.virustotal.com when on rare occasion I encounter a suspicious file</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585315</id>
	<title>I've said this before...</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1246789800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Symantec Exec to board members: "Holy underwear! Free Antivirus! From Microsoft! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec Exec to board members : " Holy underwear !
Free Antivirus !
From Microsoft !
We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here , gentlemen !
We must do something about this immediately !
Immediately ! Immediately !
Harrumph ! Harrumph !
Harrumph !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec Exec to board members: "Holy underwear!
Free Antivirus!
From Microsoft!
We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!
We must do something about this immediately!
Immediately! Immediately!
Harrumph! Harrumph!
Harrumph!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580127</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just AV software.   The entire software industry operates this way.</p><p><b>1.</b>  Shovel feature-rich bug-ware onto unsuspecting schlubs to build "brand" (especially in the enterprise/IT market where the person purchasing the software is often not the person who has to use it, so they make decisions based on feature list and brand name rather than quality)<br><b>2.</b>  Wait for hobbyists, researchers, or smaller companies to figure out how to do it right<br><b>3.</b>  Buy their companies<br><b>4.</b>  Repeat</p><p>Remember when Norton was actually decent?  It was before Symantec bought them.  After the acquisition, Symantec went back to Step 1 and gradually bloated and encrapified the antivirus.  Now they are on Step 2.  I wouldn't be surprised if they bought up someone like TrendMicro soon, spouting promises of a glorious and euphoria-inducing Norton/PC-cillin integration.</p><p>
&nbsp; -- 77IM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just AV software .
The entire software industry operates this way.1 .
Shovel feature-rich bug-ware onto unsuspecting schlubs to build " brand " ( especially in the enterprise/IT market where the person purchasing the software is often not the person who has to use it , so they make decisions based on feature list and brand name rather than quality ) 2 .
Wait for hobbyists , researchers , or smaller companies to figure out how to do it right3 .
Buy their companies4 .
RepeatRemember when Norton was actually decent ?
It was before Symantec bought them .
After the acquisition , Symantec went back to Step 1 and gradually bloated and encrapified the antivirus .
Now they are on Step 2 .
I would n't be surprised if they bought up someone like TrendMicro soon , spouting promises of a glorious and euphoria-inducing Norton/PC-cillin integration .
  -- 77IM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just AV software.
The entire software industry operates this way.1.
Shovel feature-rich bug-ware onto unsuspecting schlubs to build "brand" (especially in the enterprise/IT market where the person purchasing the software is often not the person who has to use it, so they make decisions based on feature list and brand name rather than quality)2.
Wait for hobbyists, researchers, or smaller companies to figure out how to do it right3.
Buy their companies4.
RepeatRemember when Norton was actually decent?
It was before Symantec bought them.
After the acquisition, Symantec went back to Step 1 and gradually bloated and encrapified the antivirus.
Now they are on Step 2.
I wouldn't be surprised if they bought up someone like TrendMicro soon, spouting promises of a glorious and euphoria-inducing Norton/PC-cillin integration.
  -- 77IM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583277</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>abradsn</author>
	<datestamp>1246711200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your Question: Why is virus fighting software so sucky?
<br> <br>
The reason is that viruses are plentiful and always changing or mutating if you will.  This is difficult to combat with one software package.
<br> <br>
This makes for a moving target that can only be hit as an after thought, sort of like a vaccine developed for a real virus after it has been around for a while.
<br> <br>
There are several layers to security.  Different attacks need to be filtered out at different layers.  Each scan takes time and adds to the suckiness of the virus fighting software.  Especially given that most stuff is not virus related.
<ul>
<li>Point of entry.</li>
<li>Input</li>
<li>Processing Execution</li>
<li>Output</li>
<li>Point of exit</li>
</ul><p>
I wish I had some more time to go into it now, but sadly I have too much to do right now.  Just compare it to your own home security and look for the ways to break through it and you'll get some more insight that way.  Think about how much easier it is to bypass security efforts such as strong doors by going through a whole in the wall, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Question : Why is virus fighting software so sucky ?
The reason is that viruses are plentiful and always changing or mutating if you will .
This is difficult to combat with one software package .
This makes for a moving target that can only be hit as an after thought , sort of like a vaccine developed for a real virus after it has been around for a while .
There are several layers to security .
Different attacks need to be filtered out at different layers .
Each scan takes time and adds to the suckiness of the virus fighting software .
Especially given that most stuff is not virus related .
Point of entry .
Input Processing Execution Output Point of exit I wish I had some more time to go into it now , but sadly I have too much to do right now .
Just compare it to your own home security and look for the ways to break through it and you 'll get some more insight that way .
Think about how much easier it is to bypass security efforts such as strong doors by going through a whole in the wall , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Question: Why is virus fighting software so sucky?
The reason is that viruses are plentiful and always changing or mutating if you will.
This is difficult to combat with one software package.
This makes for a moving target that can only be hit as an after thought, sort of like a vaccine developed for a real virus after it has been around for a while.
There are several layers to security.
Different attacks need to be filtered out at different layers.
Each scan takes time and adds to the suckiness of the virus fighting software.
Especially given that most stuff is not virus related.
Point of entry.
Input
Processing Execution
Output
Point of exit

I wish I had some more time to go into it now, but sadly I have too much to do right now.
Just compare it to your own home security and look for the ways to break through it and you'll get some more insight that way.
Think about how much easier it is to bypass security efforts such as strong doors by going through a whole in the wall, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579945</id>
	<title>Free Alternatives.</title>
	<author>senorpoco</author>
	<datestamp>1246720980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>does Linux count as free antivirus software?</htmltext>
<tokenext>does Linux count as free antivirus software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does Linux count as free antivirus software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579931</id>
	<title>Re:Be Afraid! Buy Our Product!</title>
	<author>Morphine007</author>
	<datestamp>1246720800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple: Is one of the products made by Norton? If so, pick the other.... I'll never get over buying a gaming rig in the late 90s, solely for the purpose of playing Quake and another FPS whose name escapes me, and having to spend hours wiping and reinstalling everything on the computer, simply because Norton AV had decided that it should consistently use over 80\% of the system resources, and refuse to turn off for any period. </p><p>That damned program was more invasive and crippling than the vast majority of the viruses it was designed to protect against &gt;.&lt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple : Is one of the products made by Norton ?
If so , pick the other.... I 'll never get over buying a gaming rig in the late 90s , solely for the purpose of playing Quake and another FPS whose name escapes me , and having to spend hours wiping and reinstalling everything on the computer , simply because Norton AV had decided that it should consistently use over 80 \ % of the system resources , and refuse to turn off for any period .
That damned program was more invasive and crippling than the vast majority of the viruses it was designed to protect against &gt; .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple: Is one of the products made by Norton?
If so, pick the other.... I'll never get over buying a gaming rig in the late 90s, solely for the purpose of playing Quake and another FPS whose name escapes me, and having to spend hours wiping and reinstalling everything on the computer, simply because Norton AV had decided that it should consistently use over 80\% of the system resources, and refuse to turn off for any period.
That damned program was more invasive and crippling than the vast majority of the viruses it was designed to protect against &gt;.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580781</id>
	<title>This is About Microsoft Security Essentials</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1246728480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symantec is worried about Microsoft Security Essentials and not other third party vendors offering free solutions.  Most of those vendors offering free options also offer subscription based models as well.  Even Symantec offers a free scanning tool.</p><p>The concern about MSSE is because with this tool there will be no real need to install a third party solution at all.  The Windows Firewall is just as good, if not better than vendor solutions.  Security Essentials is in the same playing field scoring good on detection and removal and very good on real time detection and prevention.  The other tools such as disk defrag, registry defrag, and backup utilities aren't needed from security vendors.  These are either built in to Windows or there are free solutions such as CCleaner that render this fluff in security suites a no-seller.  This is why Symantec is starting their early marketing campaign.  I expect to see other vendors jump in on this as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec is worried about Microsoft Security Essentials and not other third party vendors offering free solutions .
Most of those vendors offering free options also offer subscription based models as well .
Even Symantec offers a free scanning tool.The concern about MSSE is because with this tool there will be no real need to install a third party solution at all .
The Windows Firewall is just as good , if not better than vendor solutions .
Security Essentials is in the same playing field scoring good on detection and removal and very good on real time detection and prevention .
The other tools such as disk defrag , registry defrag , and backup utilities are n't needed from security vendors .
These are either built in to Windows or there are free solutions such as CCleaner that render this fluff in security suites a no-seller .
This is why Symantec is starting their early marketing campaign .
I expect to see other vendors jump in on this as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec is worried about Microsoft Security Essentials and not other third party vendors offering free solutions.
Most of those vendors offering free options also offer subscription based models as well.
Even Symantec offers a free scanning tool.The concern about MSSE is because with this tool there will be no real need to install a third party solution at all.
The Windows Firewall is just as good, if not better than vendor solutions.
Security Essentials is in the same playing field scoring good on detection and removal and very good on real time detection and prevention.
The other tools such as disk defrag, registry defrag, and backup utilities aren't needed from security vendors.
These are either built in to Windows or there are free solutions such as CCleaner that render this fluff in security suites a no-seller.
This is why Symantec is starting their early marketing campaign.
I expect to see other vendors jump in on this as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28591847</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Crayon Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1246912680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why does this industry suck so badly? Anyone have any insight?</p></div></blockquote><p>Windows is a wildly popular OS but unfortunately improperly secured, which combined with the rise of network connectivity and the fact Windows users tend to install things they found "on the net", has combined into the perfect malware platform. It also doesn't help that there are a miriad applications for Windows, with varying levels of quality, many of which re-invent the wheel instead of relying on common libraries, and thus reintroduce the same vulnerabilities over and over.</p><p>What to do about it? Why, of course, let's attempt to classify ALL possible pieces of malware out there and attempt to keep track of them AFTER they've entered your PC. 'Cause that makes much more sense than, say, DEP and ASLR, mandatory whitelists of software that is allowed to run, or *gasp* FIXING bad software.</p><p>In today's day and age <a href="http://www.ranum.com/security/computer\_security/editorials/dumb/" title="ranum.com">blacklisting is utterly stupid</a> [ranum.com]. It may have made sense back in the 80's and 90's when there was much fewer malware, but they have grown exponentially since then.</p><p>Right now the antivirus companies are just running a protection scheme and interested in perpetuating the status quo. They don't want malware to go away. Malware is their bread and butter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does this industry suck so badly ?
Anyone have any insight ? Windows is a wildly popular OS but unfortunately improperly secured , which combined with the rise of network connectivity and the fact Windows users tend to install things they found " on the net " , has combined into the perfect malware platform .
It also does n't help that there are a miriad applications for Windows , with varying levels of quality , many of which re-invent the wheel instead of relying on common libraries , and thus reintroduce the same vulnerabilities over and over.What to do about it ?
Why , of course , let 's attempt to classify ALL possible pieces of malware out there and attempt to keep track of them AFTER they 've entered your PC .
'Cause that makes much more sense than , say , DEP and ASLR , mandatory whitelists of software that is allowed to run , or * gasp * FIXING bad software.In today 's day and age blacklisting is utterly stupid [ ranum.com ] .
It may have made sense back in the 80 's and 90 's when there was much fewer malware , but they have grown exponentially since then.Right now the antivirus companies are just running a protection scheme and interested in perpetuating the status quo .
They do n't want malware to go away .
Malware is their bread and butter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does this industry suck so badly?
Anyone have any insight?Windows is a wildly popular OS but unfortunately improperly secured, which combined with the rise of network connectivity and the fact Windows users tend to install things they found "on the net", has combined into the perfect malware platform.
It also doesn't help that there are a miriad applications for Windows, with varying levels of quality, many of which re-invent the wheel instead of relying on common libraries, and thus reintroduce the same vulnerabilities over and over.What to do about it?
Why, of course, let's attempt to classify ALL possible pieces of malware out there and attempt to keep track of them AFTER they've entered your PC.
'Cause that makes much more sense than, say, DEP and ASLR, mandatory whitelists of software that is allowed to run, or *gasp* FIXING bad software.In today's day and age blacklisting is utterly stupid [ranum.com].
It may have made sense back in the 80's and 90's when there was much fewer malware, but they have grown exponentially since then.Right now the antivirus companies are just running a protection scheme and interested in perpetuating the status quo.
They don't want malware to go away.
Malware is their bread and butter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580737</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246728000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now lets get real, your reference to endpoint 11 blog was written in October of 2007. I run endpoint and yes in the beginning they had problems. I have had none since up dates. Norton products still suck a bit but they were not always owned by Symantec and it is going to take years to catch them up again. They are still better than nothing and I think much better than mac affee</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now lets get real , your reference to endpoint 11 blog was written in October of 2007 .
I run endpoint and yes in the beginning they had problems .
I have had none since up dates .
Norton products still suck a bit but they were not always owned by Symantec and it is going to take years to catch them up again .
They are still better than nothing and I think much better than mac affee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now lets get real, your reference to endpoint 11 blog was written in October of 2007.
I run endpoint and yes in the beginning they had problems.
I have had none since up dates.
Norton products still suck a bit but they were not always owned by Symantec and it is going to take years to catch them up again.
They are still better than nothing and I think much better than mac affee</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579689</id>
	<title>Bloated</title>
	<author>cuby</author>
	<datestamp>1246718280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>During my windows time, I stopped using Norton because it was useless and bloated. In fact, anti-virus was the reason I ditch windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>During my windows time , I stopped using Norton because it was useless and bloated .
In fact , anti-virus was the reason I ditch windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During my windows time, I stopped using Norton because it was useless and bloated.
In fact, anti-virus was the reason I ditch windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580223</id>
	<title>Symantec NAV</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1246723500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I once wrote a program to allocate every byte of free memory and consume every CPU cycle and I got a cease and desist letter from Symantec. Apparently I was infringing on a patent in NAV...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I once wrote a program to allocate every byte of free memory and consume every CPU cycle and I got a cease and desist letter from Symantec .
Apparently I was infringing on a patent in NAV.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once wrote a program to allocate every byte of free memory and consume every CPU cycle and I got a cease and desist letter from Symantec.
Apparently I was infringing on a patent in NAV...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579819</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1246719600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and here i thought symantec was a virus, one that no pc maker seems able to keep of their install images...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and here i thought symantec was a virus , one that no pc maker seems able to keep of their install images.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and here i thought symantec was a virus, one that no pc maker seems able to keep of their install images...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580607</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mainly through corporate contracts. Most corporations won't put free hardware on their computers. I'm a contractor for the government and free software is near impossible to get approved, especially when it comes to operating systems. Firefox is the only thing I know thats approved (at least on base where I am) and is also free.  Corporations and governments tend to rely on billing for their organizational skills. If they can't bill for it, then it gets confusing. Plus, they like to be able to blame someone or some company if it fails. They want to be able to get the vendor on the phone when there's a problem. This type of support is available for some free software, but not all.<br> <br>I'm not saying this excuses them, but there are reasons pay-for software is still a big market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mainly through corporate contracts .
Most corporations wo n't put free hardware on their computers .
I 'm a contractor for the government and free software is near impossible to get approved , especially when it comes to operating systems .
Firefox is the only thing I know thats approved ( at least on base where I am ) and is also free .
Corporations and governments tend to rely on billing for their organizational skills .
If they ca n't bill for it , then it gets confusing .
Plus , they like to be able to blame someone or some company if it fails .
They want to be able to get the vendor on the phone when there 's a problem .
This type of support is available for some free software , but not all .
I 'm not saying this excuses them , but there are reasons pay-for software is still a big market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mainly through corporate contracts.
Most corporations won't put free hardware on their computers.
I'm a contractor for the government and free software is near impossible to get approved, especially when it comes to operating systems.
Firefox is the only thing I know thats approved (at least on base where I am) and is also free.
Corporations and governments tend to rely on billing for their organizational skills.
If they can't bill for it, then it gets confusing.
Plus, they like to be able to blame someone or some company if it fails.
They want to be able to get the vendor on the phone when there's a problem.
This type of support is available for some free software, but not all.
I'm not saying this excuses them, but there are reasons pay-for software is still a big market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28594143</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1246893300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business. There's something deeply wrong with that.</p></div></blockquote><p>The power of the default.  When you buy a computer, it comes with Symantec virus.  The poor unsuspecting buyer thinks it's an anti-virus product and by the time it borks his machine, Symantec already has his money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business .
There 's something deeply wrong with that.The power of the default .
When you buy a computer , it comes with Symantec virus .
The poor unsuspecting buyer thinks it 's an anti-virus product and by the time it borks his machine , Symantec already has his money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business.
There's something deeply wrong with that.The power of the default.
When you buy a computer, it comes with Symantec virus.
The poor unsuspecting buyer thinks it's an anti-virus product and by the time it borks his machine, Symantec already has his money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580247</id>
	<title>End of an epoch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246723620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks to its arrogant success Windows attracted a large number of parasites eager to get a piece of the gold cake, and some security software companies (eg Symantec) concluded deals with well-known computer brands to become an unconditional part of the machine package (along with Windows). Those deals must have been rewarding: despite the many complaints (slow system, reboots, special devices failures, detection errors etc...) the parasite software is currently still "offered" with Windows (via subscription or free 6 months...) from the makers. The endless easy-money situation was not an incentive for security soft companies to make any effort towards improvements, and their poor quality software had an obvious negative impact on the Windows image. Microsoft had to react.
Hopefully this will mark the end of a parasite anti-virus software epoch - if Microsoft performs better...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to its arrogant success Windows attracted a large number of parasites eager to get a piece of the gold cake , and some security software companies ( eg Symantec ) concluded deals with well-known computer brands to become an unconditional part of the machine package ( along with Windows ) .
Those deals must have been rewarding : despite the many complaints ( slow system , reboots , special devices failures , detection errors etc... ) the parasite software is currently still " offered " with Windows ( via subscription or free 6 months... ) from the makers .
The endless easy-money situation was not an incentive for security soft companies to make any effort towards improvements , and their poor quality software had an obvious negative impact on the Windows image .
Microsoft had to react .
Hopefully this will mark the end of a parasite anti-virus software epoch - if Microsoft performs better.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to its arrogant success Windows attracted a large number of parasites eager to get a piece of the gold cake, and some security software companies (eg Symantec) concluded deals with well-known computer brands to become an unconditional part of the machine package (along with Windows).
Those deals must have been rewarding: despite the many complaints (slow system, reboots, special devices failures, detection errors etc...) the parasite software is currently still "offered" with Windows (via subscription or free 6 months...) from the makers.
The endless easy-money situation was not an incentive for security soft companies to make any effort towards improvements, and their poor quality software had an obvious negative impact on the Windows image.
Microsoft had to react.
Hopefully this will mark the end of a parasite anti-virus software epoch - if Microsoft performs better...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582061</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246740000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>cracked games [...] cause skin rashes and your nuts to fall off</p></div><p>True story. I have pictures to prove it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>cracked games [ ... ] cause skin rashes and your nuts to fall offTrue story .
I have pictures to prove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cracked games [...] cause skin rashes and your nuts to fall offTrue story.
I have pictures to prove it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584375</id>
	<title>Free anti-virus is alternative to Symantec version</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1246727040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Title says it all.  I use avg, and it has not failed me. And I use another free version for linux. Both work great.

So Symantec is trying the FUD factor, as Microsoft does, to retain their market.

Too bad MS has dropped to 87\% for desktops and is continuing to drop.

Horrah for the alternatives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Title says it all .
I use avg , and it has not failed me .
And I use another free version for linux .
Both work great .
So Symantec is trying the FUD factor , as Microsoft does , to retain their market .
Too bad MS has dropped to 87 \ % for desktops and is continuing to drop .
Horrah for the alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Title says it all.
I use avg, and it has not failed me.
And I use another free version for linux.
Both work great.
So Symantec is trying the FUD factor, as Microsoft does, to retain their market.
Too bad MS has dropped to 87\% for desktops and is continuing to drop.
Horrah for the alternatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580257</id>
	<title>sounds like a Brawndo exec warning against water</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246723680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.megavideo.com/?v=HD3GTJ5T" title="megavideo.com" rel="nofollow">Context</a> [megavideo.com] Go straight to 5:46.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Context [ megavideo.com ] Go straight to 5 : 46 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Context [megavideo.com] Go straight to 5:46.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580847</id>
	<title>Well, good thing I'm not relying \_only\_ on free AV</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1246729020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft</p></div><p>If I'm relying <i>only</i> on free antivirus to keep my system clean, then I have no business running a computer, and I need to learn more.</p><p>Good thing I also have basic skills like not downloading shady attachments, not executing random executables, and double-checking through web research whether a certain app that I'm interested will actually do what I want to to do.  Because good grief, if I'm invariably going to destroy my OS if I don't have an antivirus, maybe my habits need to be changed instead of my application.  I'll stick with my Firefox and my Ubuntu and my knowledge of how to refrain from destroying my OS to begin with.</p><p>I realize that I'm not exactly target audience (having, y'know, a few brain cells dedicated to computer competency), but hey, if Symantec wants to try to sell me their software, they can go right ahead and try.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age , you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theftIf I 'm relying only on free antivirus to keep my system clean , then I have no business running a computer , and I need to learn more.Good thing I also have basic skills like not downloading shady attachments , not executing random executables , and double-checking through web research whether a certain app that I 'm interested will actually do what I want to to do .
Because good grief , if I 'm invariably going to destroy my OS if I do n't have an antivirus , maybe my habits need to be changed instead of my application .
I 'll stick with my Firefox and my Ubuntu and my knowledge of how to refrain from destroying my OS to begin with.I realize that I 'm not exactly target audience ( having , y'know , a few brain cells dedicated to computer competency ) , but hey , if Symantec wants to try to sell me their software , they can go right ahead and try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theftIf I'm relying only on free antivirus to keep my system clean, then I have no business running a computer, and I need to learn more.Good thing I also have basic skills like not downloading shady attachments, not executing random executables, and double-checking through web research whether a certain app that I'm interested will actually do what I want to to do.
Because good grief, if I'm invariably going to destroy my OS if I don't have an antivirus, maybe my habits need to be changed instead of my application.
I'll stick with my Firefox and my Ubuntu and my knowledge of how to refrain from destroying my OS to begin with.I realize that I'm not exactly target audience (having, y'know, a few brain cells dedicated to computer competency), but hey, if Symantec wants to try to sell me their software, they can go right ahead and try.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579963</id>
	<title>How do you get infected?</title>
	<author>ShenTheWise</author>
	<datestamp>1246721100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected.
Could someone please explain how exactly does it happen?
Do people click on those "You've won!" pop-ups, then proceed to download and run some executable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected .
Could someone please explain how exactly does it happen ?
Do people click on those " You 've won !
" pop-ups , then proceed to download and run some executable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected.
Could someone please explain how exactly does it happen?
Do people click on those "You've won!
" pop-ups, then proceed to download and run some executable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581893</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwid</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1246737780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
So that's what the extra $$$ buys you.  Yes, more malware is detected.
</p><p>
But more legitimate stuff is wrongly detected as malware too?
</p><p>
You'd think they could get it right, understand the special, sensitive nature of system drivers,  and tell the user about the problem.
</p><p>
Rather than pulling loaded drivers out of the system and risking a bricking.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's what the extra $ $ $ buys you .
Yes , more malware is detected .
But more legitimate stuff is wrongly detected as malware too ?
You 'd think they could get it right , understand the special , sensitive nature of system drivers , and tell the user about the problem .
Rather than pulling loaded drivers out of the system and risking a bricking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
So that's what the extra $$$ buys you.
Yes, more malware is detected.
But more legitimate stuff is wrongly detected as malware too?
You'd think they could get it right, understand the special, sensitive nature of system drivers,  and tell the user about the problem.
Rather than pulling loaded drivers out of the system and risking a bricking.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580019</id>
	<title>anti-virus software blows</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1246721700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most consumer anti virus software sucks. It's bloated and interferes with your computer usage. On my Windows machine I use Kaspersky which performs better but it was a bit of a pain to install and required that I remove Spy-bot which is a load of rubbish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most consumer anti virus software sucks .
It 's bloated and interferes with your computer usage .
On my Windows machine I use Kaspersky which performs better but it was a bit of a pain to install and required that I remove Spy-bot which is a load of rubbish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most consumer anti virus software sucks.
It's bloated and interferes with your computer usage.
On my Windows machine I use Kaspersky which performs better but it was a bit of a pain to install and required that I remove Spy-bot which is a load of rubbish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579825</id>
	<title>Seems free alternatives ranks high</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2008-06\%2C-1-21-june" title="virus.gr" rel="nofollow">http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2008-06\%2C-1-21-june</a> [virus.gr]<br>avg<br>antivir<br>avast<br>all free all ranked high and above norton:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2008-06 \ % 2C-1-21-june [ virus.gr ] avgantiviravastall free all ranked high and above norton : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2008-06\%2C-1-21-june [virus.gr]avgantiviravastall free all ranked high and above norton:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582805</id>
	<title>Re:Linux is the best AV solution (its also free)</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246704600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ClamAV has the smallest virus database of all products on the market - and, consequently, ~75\% detection rate in <a href="http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/Results-2008q1.htm" title="pcmag.com">typical test suites</a> [pcmag.com], which is at the bottom of the barrel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ClamAV has the smallest virus database of all products on the market - and , consequently , ~ 75 \ % detection rate in typical test suites [ pcmag.com ] , which is at the bottom of the barrel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ClamAV has the smallest virus database of all products on the market - and, consequently, ~75\% detection rate in typical test suites [pcmag.com], which is at the bottom of the barrel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582013</id>
	<title>AVG used to be great to</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1246739340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before AVG 8. Now AVG doesn't even seem to remove viruses, it just tells you they are there. Also, their new 'feature' of having AVG search EVERY SINGLE HIT you have in a google search is RETARDED.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before AVG 8 .
Now AVG does n't even seem to remove viruses , it just tells you they are there .
Also , their new 'feature ' of having AVG search EVERY SINGLE HIT you have in a google search is RETARDED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before AVG 8.
Now AVG doesn't even seem to remove viruses, it just tells you they are there.
Also, their new 'feature' of having AVG search EVERY SINGLE HIT you have in a google search is RETARDED.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580175</id>
	<title>Most Windows User are Very Uninformed..</title>
	<author>OnE\_HoT\_It\_BiTcH</author>
	<datestamp>1246723080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think Norton is crying foul over loosing market share to freebie software. Free software gives you some protection which is better than nothing but its a lot like having a monkey instead of having a kid.

Do you stay up with reviews on the latest graphics card and CPU benchmarks? Why wouldn't you do the same with software? Norton seams to be much faster and less bloated now days.

Free AV software doesn't offer tech support and you dont get frequent virus definition updates. Norton gives you an update every 5 min.

Nothing will completely protect you against everything. Users are delusional to believe this. Feel free to quote the fanboys law at anytime. Windows is the #1 target due to popularity.

A few things you should have to stay "safe"
- Practice safe browsing
- Have real time virus protection
- Robust Firewall
- Password protect your password.. don't just let firefox save them for you.
- Run a full scan once a week.
- Don't use multiple virus scanners as they will conflict with each other.

As an IT professional I'm just shocked by many of the previous comments. Do your home work.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Norton is crying foul over loosing market share to freebie software .
Free software gives you some protection which is better than nothing but its a lot like having a monkey instead of having a kid .
Do you stay up with reviews on the latest graphics card and CPU benchmarks ?
Why would n't you do the same with software ?
Norton seams to be much faster and less bloated now days .
Free AV software does n't offer tech support and you dont get frequent virus definition updates .
Norton gives you an update every 5 min .
Nothing will completely protect you against everything .
Users are delusional to believe this .
Feel free to quote the fanboys law at anytime .
Windows is the # 1 target due to popularity .
A few things you should have to stay " safe " - Practice safe browsing - Have real time virus protection - Robust Firewall - Password protect your password.. do n't just let firefox save them for you .
- Run a full scan once a week .
- Do n't use multiple virus scanners as they will conflict with each other .
As an IT professional I 'm just shocked by many of the previous comments .
Do your home work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Norton is crying foul over loosing market share to freebie software.
Free software gives you some protection which is better than nothing but its a lot like having a monkey instead of having a kid.
Do you stay up with reviews on the latest graphics card and CPU benchmarks?
Why wouldn't you do the same with software?
Norton seams to be much faster and less bloated now days.
Free AV software doesn't offer tech support and you dont get frequent virus definition updates.
Norton gives you an update every 5 min.
Nothing will completely protect you against everything.
Users are delusional to believe this.
Feel free to quote the fanboys law at anytime.
Windows is the #1 target due to popularity.
A few things you should have to stay "safe"
- Practice safe browsing
- Have real time virus protection
- Robust Firewall
- Password protect your password.. don't just let firefox save them for you.
- Run a full scan once a week.
- Don't use multiple virus scanners as they will conflict with each other.
As an IT professional I'm just shocked by many of the previous comments.
Do your home work.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579915</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246720500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you just hit right on the head the biggest security measure you can do-get them off IE! I have found by getting them off IE, either with FF, Seamonkey(the older folks seem to prefer its Netscape style layout to FF), Kmeleon(for older machines) or Flock(for those into social networking) the rate of infection goes WAY down with my users.</p><p>The second biggest security advice I can give is don't make your users think. I have <a href="http://antivirus.comodo.com/" title="comodo.com">Comodo</a> [comodo.com] set to auto scan nightly based on their usage patterns, Spybot set to do the same, <a href="http://www.foxitsoftware.com/" title="foxitsoftware.com">Foxit</a> [foxitsoftware.com] does its own updates, Windows set to autoupdate, etc. I have found that by relying on the user as little as possible it helps to keep the system up to date and less of a target. Relying on the user is how so many end up with a four year old out of date Symantec "product" as the only AV on a users machine.</p><p>

But I personally think it is funny that the head of Symantec is warning about free AVs, when oftentimes his "product" will drag a machine to its knees worse than any malware infection! When I hand the customer a box that previously had Symantec their machine with something like Comodo installed the first thing they comment on is how much faster their machine is, which is kinda sad, as once upon a time (during the days of DOS and Win9X) Norton was a sign of quality. But like most things Symantec touches Norton turned to crap. BTW, is there <i>any</i> product the Symantec bought that hasn't turned to crap?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you just hit right on the head the biggest security measure you can do-get them off IE !
I have found by getting them off IE , either with FF , Seamonkey ( the older folks seem to prefer its Netscape style layout to FF ) , Kmeleon ( for older machines ) or Flock ( for those into social networking ) the rate of infection goes WAY down with my users.The second biggest security advice I can give is do n't make your users think .
I have Comodo [ comodo.com ] set to auto scan nightly based on their usage patterns , Spybot set to do the same , Foxit [ foxitsoftware.com ] does its own updates , Windows set to autoupdate , etc .
I have found that by relying on the user as little as possible it helps to keep the system up to date and less of a target .
Relying on the user is how so many end up with a four year old out of date Symantec " product " as the only AV on a users machine .
But I personally think it is funny that the head of Symantec is warning about free AVs , when oftentimes his " product " will drag a machine to its knees worse than any malware infection !
When I hand the customer a box that previously had Symantec their machine with something like Comodo installed the first thing they comment on is how much faster their machine is , which is kinda sad , as once upon a time ( during the days of DOS and Win9X ) Norton was a sign of quality .
But like most things Symantec touches Norton turned to crap .
BTW , is there any product the Symantec bought that has n't turned to crap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you just hit right on the head the biggest security measure you can do-get them off IE!
I have found by getting them off IE, either with FF, Seamonkey(the older folks seem to prefer its Netscape style layout to FF), Kmeleon(for older machines) or Flock(for those into social networking) the rate of infection goes WAY down with my users.The second biggest security advice I can give is don't make your users think.
I have Comodo [comodo.com] set to auto scan nightly based on their usage patterns, Spybot set to do the same, Foxit [foxitsoftware.com] does its own updates, Windows set to autoupdate, etc.
I have found that by relying on the user as little as possible it helps to keep the system up to date and less of a target.
Relying on the user is how so many end up with a four year old out of date Symantec "product" as the only AV on a users machine.
But I personally think it is funny that the head of Symantec is warning about free AVs, when oftentimes his "product" will drag a machine to its knees worse than any malware infection!
When I hand the customer a box that previously had Symantec their machine with something like Comodo installed the first thing they comment on is how much faster their machine is, which is kinda sad, as once upon a time (during the days of DOS and Win9X) Norton was a sign of quality.
But like most things Symantec touches Norton turned to crap.
BTW, is there any product the Symantec bought that hasn't turned to crap?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579973</id>
	<title>Symantec is stealing more than any identity thief.</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1246721220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft with common sense and no anti virus at all.  In fact most people with no common sense have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft with no software at all.  Is identity theft a problem yes?  Is saying people will have their indetity stolen without using pay software disingenuous and bordering on fraudulent absolutely.</p><p>Why do we have an FTC if not to lock up people like this? If he is not inside a jail cell in 6 months, the commission should be disbanded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft with common sense and no anti virus at all .
In fact most people with no common sense have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft with no software at all .
Is identity theft a problem yes ?
Is saying people will have their indetity stolen without using pay software disingenuous and bordering on fraudulent absolutely.Why do we have an FTC if not to lock up people like this ?
If he is not inside a jail cell in 6 months , the commission should be disbanded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft with common sense and no anti virus at all.
In fact most people with no common sense have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft with no software at all.
Is identity theft a problem yes?
Is saying people will have their indetity stolen without using pay software disingenuous and bordering on fraudulent absolutely.Why do we have an FTC if not to lock up people like this?
If he is not inside a jail cell in 6 months, the commission should be disbanded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579903</id>
	<title>why bother at all?</title>
	<author>novex</author>
	<datestamp>1246720440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i havnt used antivirus software in over 7 years now, simple common sense with emails and completely disabling every "feature" in IE that i can, then proceeding to not use it at all for browsing has resulted in a virus free computer.</p><p>i see antivirus as the computer equivalent of over the top health and safety policies. They make stupid lazy people feel safe but dont actualy achieve much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i havnt used antivirus software in over 7 years now , simple common sense with emails and completely disabling every " feature " in IE that i can , then proceeding to not use it at all for browsing has resulted in a virus free computer.i see antivirus as the computer equivalent of over the top health and safety policies .
They make stupid lazy people feel safe but dont actualy achieve much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i havnt used antivirus software in over 7 years now, simple common sense with emails and completely disabling every "feature" in IE that i can, then proceeding to not use it at all for browsing has resulted in a virus free computer.i see antivirus as the computer equivalent of over the top health and safety policies.
They make stupid lazy people feel safe but dont actualy achieve much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580741</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246728000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What went wrong? Why does this industry suck so badly? Anyone have any insight?</p></div><p>Disclaimer: I'm not any particular expert.
</p><p>My guess is that at least part of the problem is that the only thing that AV software seems to do well is basically signature-based detection, which they had down pat a couple decades ago.  So for the past few decades, mostly AV software only needed updates to work with new operating systems, bug fixes, and new signatures.
</p><p>Now the only real problem with that is that these companies all want to release a new version of their software every year and have everyone re-buy it, because (for psychological reasons) people will pay more for that (or a subscription to receive "free" updates) than they'll pay for signature updates.  This puts the companies in a position where it makes sense to throw some new bells and whistles into their product every year, whether or not they're sensible or effective.  That leads to bloat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What went wrong ?
Why does this industry suck so badly ?
Anyone have any insight ? Disclaimer : I 'm not any particular expert .
My guess is that at least part of the problem is that the only thing that AV software seems to do well is basically signature-based detection , which they had down pat a couple decades ago .
So for the past few decades , mostly AV software only needed updates to work with new operating systems , bug fixes , and new signatures .
Now the only real problem with that is that these companies all want to release a new version of their software every year and have everyone re-buy it , because ( for psychological reasons ) people will pay more for that ( or a subscription to receive " free " updates ) than they 'll pay for signature updates .
This puts the companies in a position where it makes sense to throw some new bells and whistles into their product every year , whether or not they 're sensible or effective .
That leads to bloat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What went wrong?
Why does this industry suck so badly?
Anyone have any insight?Disclaimer: I'm not any particular expert.
My guess is that at least part of the problem is that the only thing that AV software seems to do well is basically signature-based detection, which they had down pat a couple decades ago.
So for the past few decades, mostly AV software only needed updates to work with new operating systems, bug fixes, and new signatures.
Now the only real problem with that is that these companies all want to release a new version of their software every year and have everyone re-buy it, because (for psychological reasons) people will pay more for that (or a subscription to receive "free" updates) than they'll pay for signature updates.
This puts the companies in a position where it makes sense to throw some new bells and whistles into their product every year, whether or not they're sensible or effective.
That leads to bloat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584237</id>
	<title>Re:How do you get infected?</title>
	<author>rts008</author>
	<datestamp>1246725180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected.</p></div><p>I'll give you the benefit of doubt here, and just applaud your prudence.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do people click on those "You've won!" pop-ups, then proceed to download and run some executable?</p></div><p>Yes, and worse...they even answer spam, and click on attachments from strangers...still!</p><p>Many plans, systems, requirements, etc., look good on paper, and are easily implemented with our current technological capabilities. Everything looks and works great until you let people get their hands on it/try to use it.<br>People are the problem here; always have been, are now, and always will be. If you can successfully overcome this, then patent the method! That would achieve a DoD* wet dream come true! Worth millions, even billions, maybe even gazillions!</p><p>*The US Department of Defense has lusted after the ability to make issue equipment/munitions that were 'G.I./Soldier-proof'. Ask any senior noncom...the average private/seaman/airman could screw up an anvil with a rubber mallet.<br>That is one of the reasons for the '$900.00 hammer' style contracts. (then subcontractors run for a mile with that spec for an inch, then the spec is changed....rinse and repeat <i>ad nauseum</i>. But that's another rant)</p><p>In the rubber mallet/anvil scenario, to be fair in this context, we have to consider the amount of 'Beta testing' of stuff that gets foisted onto the troops...not to mention the ingenuity and usefulness of some of their 'field expedient' solutions to unique and unforeseen problems.</p><p>People being diverse individuals is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways. Try for balance instead of forcing a solution. (see, I actually had a point with this seemingly rambling diatribe)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected.I 'll give you the benefit of doubt here , and just applaud your prudence.Do people click on those " You 've won !
" pop-ups , then proceed to download and run some executable ? Yes , and worse...they even answer spam , and click on attachments from strangers...still ! Many plans , systems , requirements , etc. , look good on paper , and are easily implemented with our current technological capabilities .
Everything looks and works great until you let people get their hands on it/try to use it.People are the problem here ; always have been , are now , and always will be .
If you can successfully overcome this , then patent the method !
That would achieve a DoD * wet dream come true !
Worth millions , even billions , maybe even gazillions !
* The US Department of Defense has lusted after the ability to make issue equipment/munitions that were 'G.I./Soldier-proof' .
Ask any senior noncom...the average private/seaman/airman could screw up an anvil with a rubber mallet.That is one of the reasons for the ' $ 900.00 hammer ' style contracts .
( then subcontractors run for a mile with that spec for an inch , then the spec is changed....rinse and repeat ad nauseum .
But that 's another rant ) In the rubber mallet/anvil scenario , to be fair in this context , we have to consider the amount of 'Beta testing ' of stuff that gets foisted onto the troops...not to mention the ingenuity and usefulness of some of their 'field expedient ' solutions to unique and unforeseen problems.People being diverse individuals is a two-edged sword .
It cuts both ways .
Try for balance instead of forcing a solution .
( see , I actually had a point with this seemingly rambling diatribe )    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected.I'll give you the benefit of doubt here, and just applaud your prudence.Do people click on those "You've won!
" pop-ups, then proceed to download and run some executable?Yes, and worse...they even answer spam, and click on attachments from strangers...still!Many plans, systems, requirements, etc., look good on paper, and are easily implemented with our current technological capabilities.
Everything looks and works great until you let people get their hands on it/try to use it.People are the problem here; always have been, are now, and always will be.
If you can successfully overcome this, then patent the method!
That would achieve a DoD* wet dream come true!
Worth millions, even billions, maybe even gazillions!
*The US Department of Defense has lusted after the ability to make issue equipment/munitions that were 'G.I./Soldier-proof'.
Ask any senior noncom...the average private/seaman/airman could screw up an anvil with a rubber mallet.That is one of the reasons for the '$900.00 hammer' style contracts.
(then subcontractors run for a mile with that spec for an inch, then the spec is changed....rinse and repeat ad nauseum.
But that's another rant)In the rubber mallet/anvil scenario, to be fair in this context, we have to consider the amount of 'Beta testing' of stuff that gets foisted onto the troops...not to mention the ingenuity and usefulness of some of their 'field expedient' solutions to unique and unforeseen problems.People being diverse individuals is a two-edged sword.
It cuts both ways.
Try for balance instead of forcing a solution.
(see, I actually had a point with this seemingly rambling diatribe)
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585975</id>
	<title>Don't be stupid, don't use IE.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1246803180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THe last time I had malware on a computer I used was back in the early '90s... a DOS-based boot sector virus picked up from a co-worker's floppy disk. Since then my primary antivirus has been "don't be stupid, and don't use internet explorer". Periodic checks have shown no viruses, nothing worse than cookies from websites the antivirus and antispyware mob consider dodgy.</p><p>So, yes, I would say that there's a huge disconnect between the risks people face and the tools they need to use... starting with Symantec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THe last time I had malware on a computer I used was back in the early '90s... a DOS-based boot sector virus picked up from a co-worker 's floppy disk .
Since then my primary antivirus has been " do n't be stupid , and do n't use internet explorer " .
Periodic checks have shown no viruses , nothing worse than cookies from websites the antivirus and antispyware mob consider dodgy.So , yes , I would say that there 's a huge disconnect between the risks people face and the tools they need to use... starting with Symantec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THe last time I had malware on a computer I used was back in the early '90s... a DOS-based boot sector virus picked up from a co-worker's floppy disk.
Since then my primary antivirus has been "don't be stupid, and don't use internet explorer".
Periodic checks have shown no viruses, nothing worse than cookies from websites the antivirus and antispyware mob consider dodgy.So, yes, I would say that there's a huge disconnect between the risks people face and the tools they need to use... starting with Symantec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580025</id>
	<title>He would say that</title>
	<author>Verteiron</author>
	<datestamp>1246721760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people stopped paying for Norton, how will they be able to keep up the under-the-table payments to virus writers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people stopped paying for Norton , how will they be able to keep up the under-the-table payments to virus writers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people stopped paying for Norton, how will they be able to keep up the under-the-table payments to virus writers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580299</id>
	<title>Ms does well for NASDAQ's reporting system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246724040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Microsoft warns against free operating systems. "They're so inferior! Look at ours, it runs the London Stock Exchange...oh wait."</b> - by bmo (77928) on Saturday July 04, @09:36AM (#28579671)</p></div><p>Perhaps the folks @ the London Stock Exchange didn't do a great job &amp; had to move away from SQLServer 2000 + Windows Server 2003, but NASDAQ's done pretty well with a major subsystem (reporting for end users &amp;/or customers) called "THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM" (MDDS) which runs on Windows Server 2003, AND, SQLServer 2005... testimonials from the VP of this project are as follows:</p><p>----</p><p><b>"The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry. For years, we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability"</b> - said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.</p><p><b>"The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions."</b> - said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.</p><p><b>"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of<br>trading data. It has worked perfectly for us"</b> - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.</p><p>FROM -&gt; <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>MDDS</b> (acronym for this reporting system) <b>doesn't run "the entire show" @ NASDAQ, &amp; in fact, BUT?</b></p><p><b>Neither does what runs the quote trading data program setup</b> (i.e.-&gt; it does what IT does, but it does not do what the report system here in MDDS does either)...</p><p>(However - A Microsoft based software system does play a major part as "THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM" @ NASDAQ, &amp; does well (PERFECT, &amp; ENTERPRISE CLASS/MISSION CRITICAL PERFECT) another stock exchange)...</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; A lot of people seem to think that "1 program runs the entire array of tasks" @ these places, &amp; that is NOT the case...</p><p>(Clearly, based on the above testimonials &amp; article? MS has done a decent job nevertheless)</p><p>This "uptime performance" also largely depends on the systems (hardware-wise) these tasks are laid out/distributed across, as well as the coders that wrote them, the architects who planned them, &amp; the network engineering/tech staff, that maintains them... as well as the budgets laid out for all of those! apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft warns against free operating systems .
" They 're so inferior !
Look at ours , it runs the London Stock Exchange...oh wait .
" - by bmo ( 77928 ) on Saturday July 04 , @ 09 : 36AM ( # 28579671 ) Perhaps the folks @ the London Stock Exchange did n't do a great job &amp; had to move away from SQLServer 2000 + Windows Server 2003 , but NASDAQ 's done pretty well with a major subsystem ( reporting for end users &amp;/or customers ) called " THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM " ( MDDS ) which runs on Windows Server 2003 , AND , SQLServer 2005... testimonials from the VP of this project are as follows : ---- " The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry .
For years , we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability " - said Ken Richmond , vice president for software engineering , market information systems at NASDAQ .
" The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions .
" - said Ken Richmond , vice president for software engineering , market information systems at NASDAQ .
" We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery oftrading data .
It has worked perfectly for us " - Ken Richmond , vice president for software engineering , market information systems at NASDAQ.FROM - &gt; http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 49271 [ microsoft.com ] ----MDDS ( acronym for this reporting system ) does n't run " the entire show " @ NASDAQ , &amp; in fact , BUT ? Neither does what runs the quote trading data program setup ( i.e.- &gt; it does what IT does , but it does not do what the report system here in MDDS does either ) ... ( However - A Microsoft based software system does play a major part as " THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM " @ NASDAQ , &amp; does well ( PERFECT , &amp; ENTERPRISE CLASS/MISSION CRITICAL PERFECT ) another stock exchange ) ...APKP.S. = &gt; A lot of people seem to think that " 1 program runs the entire array of tasks " @ these places , &amp; that is NOT the case... ( Clearly , based on the above testimonials &amp; article ?
MS has done a decent job nevertheless ) This " uptime performance " also largely depends on the systems ( hardware-wise ) these tasks are laid out/distributed across , as well as the coders that wrote them , the architects who planned them , &amp; the network engineering/tech staff , that maintains them... as well as the budgets laid out for all of those !
apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft warns against free operating systems.
"They're so inferior!
Look at ours, it runs the London Stock Exchange...oh wait.
" - by bmo (77928) on Saturday July 04, @09:36AM (#28579671)Perhaps the folks @ the London Stock Exchange didn't do a great job &amp; had to move away from SQLServer 2000 + Windows Server 2003, but NASDAQ's done pretty well with a major subsystem (reporting for end users &amp;/or customers) called "THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM" (MDDS) which runs on Windows Server 2003, AND, SQLServer 2005... testimonials from the VP of this project are as follows:----"The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry.
For years, we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability" - said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions.
" - said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery oftrading data.
It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.FROM -&gt; http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271 [microsoft.com]----MDDS (acronym for this reporting system) doesn't run "the entire show" @ NASDAQ, &amp; in fact, BUT?Neither does what runs the quote trading data program setup (i.e.-&gt; it does what IT does, but it does not do what the report system here in MDDS does either)...(However - A Microsoft based software system does play a major part as "THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM" @ NASDAQ, &amp; does well (PERFECT, &amp; ENTERPRISE CLASS/MISSION CRITICAL PERFECT) another stock exchange)...APKP.S.=&gt; A lot of people seem to think that "1 program runs the entire array of tasks" @ these places, &amp; that is NOT the case...(Clearly, based on the above testimonials &amp; article?
MS has done a decent job nevertheless)This "uptime performance" also largely depends on the systems (hardware-wise) these tasks are laid out/distributed across, as well as the coders that wrote them, the architects who planned them, &amp; the network engineering/tech staff, that maintains them... as well as the budgets laid out for all of those!
apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580119</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than Norton</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1246722540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Norton Internet Security was so completely terrible</p></div><p>And this is it.  NIS was so completely terrible that when they did come out with a better, faster product, no one listened.  The damage had been done, Grisoft AVG, Comodo and a host of others had already made inroads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Norton Internet Security was so completely terribleAnd this is it .
NIS was so completely terrible that when they did come out with a better , faster product , no one listened .
The damage had been done , Grisoft AVG , Comodo and a host of others had already made inroads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Norton Internet Security was so completely terribleAnd this is it.
NIS was so completely terrible that when they did come out with a better, faster product, no one listened.
The damage had been done, Grisoft AVG, Comodo and a host of others had already made inroads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</id>
	<title>McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwide</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1246717800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"IT admins across the globe are letting out a collective groan after servers and PCs running McAfee VirusScan were brought down when the <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/mcafee\_false\_positive\_glitch/" title="theregister.co.uk">anti-virus program</a> [theregister.co.uk] attack their core system files. In some cases, this caused the machines to display the dreaded blue screen of death"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" IT admins across the globe are letting out a collective groan after servers and PCs running McAfee VirusScan were brought down when the anti-virus program [ theregister.co.uk ] attack their core system files .
In some cases , this caused the machines to display the dreaded blue screen of death "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"IT admins across the globe are letting out a collective groan after servers and PCs running McAfee VirusScan were brought down when the anti-virus program [theregister.co.uk] attack their core system files.
In some cases, this caused the machines to display the dreaded blue screen of death"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581867</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246737420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A +5 "Nuke It From Orbit" Boot Disk Amulet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A + 5 " Nuke It From Orbit " Boot Disk Amulet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A +5 "Nuke It From Orbit" Boot Disk Amulet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585985</id>
	<title>Well if their product was any good...</title>
	<author>rayk\_sland</author>
	<datestamp>1246803360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is such a clear case of if you can't win on your own merits, try FUD!!! I have watched the quality of Symantec Antivirus products steadily decline in quality while rising in price ever since the first Norton Antivirus (I'd be upset if I were Peter Norton, to have my name dragged through the mud like that). It's a trend I've seen among service tech's out there. "Problems on your PC? Oh, let's start by removing Norton..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is such a clear case of if you ca n't win on your own merits , try FUD ! ! !
I have watched the quality of Symantec Antivirus products steadily decline in quality while rising in price ever since the first Norton Antivirus ( I 'd be upset if I were Peter Norton , to have my name dragged through the mud like that ) .
It 's a trend I 've seen among service tech 's out there .
" Problems on your PC ?
Oh , let 's start by removing Norton... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is such a clear case of if you can't win on your own merits, try FUD!!!
I have watched the quality of Symantec Antivirus products steadily decline in quality while rising in price ever since the first Norton Antivirus (I'd be upset if I were Peter Norton, to have my name dragged through the mud like that).
It's a trend I've seen among service tech's out there.
"Problems on your PC?
Oh, let's start by removing Norton..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580011</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246721640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09\_02" title="virusbtn.com">Virus Bulletin</a> [virusbtn.com] unbiased enough?</p><p>Dunno if they have a more recent test, that's the one I had bookmarked. I get about the same results in my tests, btw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus Bulletin [ virusbtn.com ] unbiased enough ? Dunno if they have a more recent test , that 's the one I had bookmarked .
I get about the same results in my tests , btw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus Bulletin [virusbtn.com] unbiased enough?Dunno if they have a more recent test, that's the one I had bookmarked.
I get about the same results in my tests, btw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580093</id>
	<title>School network, no anti-virus ...</title>
	<author>MacTO</author>
	<datestamp>1246722420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some well meaning person decided to get a site license for and install Symantec's anti-virus software on my school's networks.  It was pulled off of the machines within a week.  In a couple of cases, removal meant restoring the system from an image because their product refused to uninstall.  The reason for the fuss is simple: their product was causing problems on a continuous basis, adding hours of work per day to my workload and making it impossible to use critical software.</p><p>A simple cost-benefit analysis showed that our systems could be destroyed every other week by the latest virus or worm then the systems could be restored from an image, and it would still involve less lost productivity than running their fine product.  But the network doesn't get blasted by a virus that often.  Probably because things have changed considerably over the past few years, ranging from user habits to the built-in security of Windows to hardware managing the network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some well meaning person decided to get a site license for and install Symantec 's anti-virus software on my school 's networks .
It was pulled off of the machines within a week .
In a couple of cases , removal meant restoring the system from an image because their product refused to uninstall .
The reason for the fuss is simple : their product was causing problems on a continuous basis , adding hours of work per day to my workload and making it impossible to use critical software.A simple cost-benefit analysis showed that our systems could be destroyed every other week by the latest virus or worm then the systems could be restored from an image , and it would still involve less lost productivity than running their fine product .
But the network does n't get blasted by a virus that often .
Probably because things have changed considerably over the past few years , ranging from user habits to the built-in security of Windows to hardware managing the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some well meaning person decided to get a site license for and install Symantec's anti-virus software on my school's networks.
It was pulled off of the machines within a week.
In a couple of cases, removal meant restoring the system from an image because their product refused to uninstall.
The reason for the fuss is simple: their product was causing problems on a continuous basis, adding hours of work per day to my workload and making it impossible to use critical software.A simple cost-benefit analysis showed that our systems could be destroyed every other week by the latest virus or worm then the systems could be restored from an image, and it would still involve less lost productivity than running their fine product.
But the network doesn't get blasted by a virus that often.
Probably because things have changed considerably over the past few years, ranging from user habits to the built-in security of Windows to hardware managing the network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583515</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than Norton</title>
	<author>hidannik</author>
	<datestamp>1246713900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps because good customer relations will make you more money in the long run?
<br>
Perhaps because there's more to life than the money you can make by exploiting the misery of others?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps because good customer relations will make you more money in the long run ?
Perhaps because there 's more to life than the money you can make by exploiting the misery of others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps because good customer relations will make you more money in the long run?
Perhaps because there's more to life than the money you can make by exploiting the misery of others?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584481</id>
	<title>Re:Be Afraid! Buy Our Product!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246729200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I disagree.  How many computer users are able to make an accurate judgement between two pieces of antivirus software?  When you decide to choose one AV program over another, what metrics do you use?</p></div><p>In my experience, many people choose to install both.</p><p>Yes, this is as bad of an idea as it sounds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
How many computer users are able to make an accurate judgement between two pieces of antivirus software ?
When you decide to choose one AV program over another , what metrics do you use ? In my experience , many people choose to install both.Yes , this is as bad of an idea as it sounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
How many computer users are able to make an accurate judgement between two pieces of antivirus software?
When you decide to choose one AV program over another, what metrics do you use?In my experience, many people choose to install both.Yes, this is as bad of an idea as it sounds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579763</id>
	<title>An open letter to David Hall</title>
	<author>ZosX</author>
	<datestamp>1246718940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the matter, boy?<br>I bet you squeal.<br>I bet you can squeal like a pig.<br>Let's squeal. Squeal now.</p><p>Squeal.</p><p>Squeal.</p><p>Squeal louder. Louder.</p><p>Louder.</p><p>Louder.</p><p>Louder!</p><p>Louder! Get down now, boy!</p><p>There, get them britches down. That's that.<br>You can do better than that, boy.<br>Come on, squeal. Squeal!<br>What's you wanna do with him?<br>He got a real pretty mouth, ain't he?<br>That's the truth.<br>You're gonna do some prayin' for me, boy.<br>And you better pray good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the matter , boy ? I bet you squeal.I bet you can squeal like a pig.Let 's squeal .
Squeal now.Squeal.Squeal.Squeal louder .
Louder.Louder.Louder.Louder ! Louder ! Get down now , boy ! There , get them britches down .
That 's that.You can do better than that , boy.Come on , squeal .
Squeal ! What 's you wan na do with him ? He got a real pretty mouth , ai n't he ? That 's the truth.You 're gon na do some prayin ' for me , boy.And you better pray good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the matter, boy?I bet you squeal.I bet you can squeal like a pig.Let's squeal.
Squeal now.Squeal.Squeal.Squeal louder.
Louder.Louder.Louder.Louder!Louder! Get down now, boy!There, get them britches down.
That's that.You can do better than that, boy.Come on, squeal.
Squeal!What's you wanna do with him?He got a real pretty mouth, ain't he?That's the truth.You're gonna do some prayin' for me, boy.And you better pray good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581367</id>
	<title>Sounds like the FUD against Universal Health Care</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1246732980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symantec is taking a page right out of the republican/democrat "anti (not for profit) universal health care" hand book. Instead of having universal single payer health care that would cover us all, for the good of man kind... the special interest groups are spreading FUD because they would lose profit and power.</p><p>Same thing with Symantec. They would have you believe that Free AV would destroy humanity itself and leave you unprotected. Symantec would have you believe that only they can protect you properly.</p><p>The reality is free AV will help prevent the spread of virii thanks to more people having anti virus software.</p><p>Apparently Symantec doesnt really care about protecting users... they just want a profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec is taking a page right out of the republican/democrat " anti ( not for profit ) universal health care " hand book .
Instead of having universal single payer health care that would cover us all , for the good of man kind... the special interest groups are spreading FUD because they would lose profit and power.Same thing with Symantec .
They would have you believe that Free AV would destroy humanity itself and leave you unprotected .
Symantec would have you believe that only they can protect you properly.The reality is free AV will help prevent the spread of virii thanks to more people having anti virus software.Apparently Symantec doesnt really care about protecting users... they just want a profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec is taking a page right out of the republican/democrat "anti (not for profit) universal health care" hand book.
Instead of having universal single payer health care that would cover us all, for the good of man kind... the special interest groups are spreading FUD because they would lose profit and power.Same thing with Symantec.
They would have you believe that Free AV would destroy humanity itself and leave you unprotected.
Symantec would have you believe that only they can protect you properly.The reality is free AV will help prevent the spread of virii thanks to more people having anti virus software.Apparently Symantec doesnt really care about protecting users... they just want a profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580229</id>
	<title>They're gonna recommend LINUX users get Symantec</title>
	<author>Yaddoshi</author>
	<datestamp>1246723500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this the same company that just recently claimed to have detected a bot-net running from infected Apple OSX systems?</p><p>Don't they also have a product for smart phones?</p><p>I'm waiting for them to recommend Norton Antivirus for LINUX.</p><p>This will be followed by Norton Antivirus for shoes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the same company that just recently claimed to have detected a bot-net running from infected Apple OSX systems ? Do n't they also have a product for smart phones ? I 'm waiting for them to recommend Norton Antivirus for LINUX.This will be followed by Norton Antivirus for shoes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the same company that just recently claimed to have detected a bot-net running from infected Apple OSX systems?Don't they also have a product for smart phones?I'm waiting for them to recommend Norton Antivirus for LINUX.This will be followed by Norton Antivirus for shoes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581263</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246732080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used a private personal free AV software for over 10 years. I have yet to be infected by 1 trojan, virus or mailware.</p><p>"Your computer is only as safe as the user who is using it."<br>-Neruos, 1999</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used a private personal free AV software for over 10 years .
I have yet to be infected by 1 trojan , virus or mailware .
" Your computer is only as safe as the user who is using it .
" -Neruos , 1999</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used a private personal free AV software for over 10 years.
I have yet to be infected by 1 trojan, virus or mailware.
"Your computer is only as safe as the user who is using it.
"-Neruos, 1999</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28591745</id>
	<title>Norton is great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246910760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I earn more cleaning trial or outdated versions of Norton and its associated hijackware from my customers PCs, than most malware. I also replace with a free AV with far lower resource requirements and better detection rates.</p><p>In these difficult economic times I would like to thank David Hall and co for putting food on my table.  Keep it up guys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I earn more cleaning trial or outdated versions of Norton and its associated hijackware from my customers PCs , than most malware .
I also replace with a free AV with far lower resource requirements and better detection rates.In these difficult economic times I would like to thank David Hall and co for putting food on my table .
Keep it up guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I earn more cleaning trial or outdated versions of Norton and its associated hijackware from my customers PCs, than most malware.
I also replace with a free AV with far lower resource requirements and better detection rates.In these difficult economic times I would like to thank David Hall and co for putting food on my table.
Keep it up guys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580475</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Sniper98G</author>
	<datestamp>1246725840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd just like to point out this quote from the article.</p><p>"We've made more virus definitions last year than we have in the last 10 years."</p><p>This is a physical and logical impossibility. It makes me wonder what else is made up in there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd just like to point out this quote from the article .
" We 've made more virus definitions last year than we have in the last 10 years .
" This is a physical and logical impossibility .
It makes me wonder what else is made up in there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd just like to point out this quote from the article.
"We've made more virus definitions last year than we have in the last 10 years.
"This is a physical and logical impossibility.
It makes me wonder what else is made up in there.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580977</id>
	<title>We paid for AV and ditched Symantec</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246729920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are a small school with about 250 desktops and 30 servers.  We finally said goodbye to Symantec Corporate AV after repeated failures by the product to do anything useful.</p><p>We looked at free alternatives, but settled on Sophos AV for its Mac and PC support in one admin console.</p><p>Educational pricing was quite good, and the support (the few times we needed it) has been good also.</p><p>I haven't had as much luck getting rid of Backup Exec - everything I've tried has been worse that BE.  So, for now, BE stays.</p><p>Symantec, you are losing market share not due to free alternatives, but because you SUCK.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are a small school with about 250 desktops and 30 servers .
We finally said goodbye to Symantec Corporate AV after repeated failures by the product to do anything useful.We looked at free alternatives , but settled on Sophos AV for its Mac and PC support in one admin console.Educational pricing was quite good , and the support ( the few times we needed it ) has been good also.I have n't had as much luck getting rid of Backup Exec - everything I 've tried has been worse that BE .
So , for now , BE stays.Symantec , you are losing market share not due to free alternatives , but because you SUCK.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are a small school with about 250 desktops and 30 servers.
We finally said goodbye to Symantec Corporate AV after repeated failures by the product to do anything useful.We looked at free alternatives, but settled on Sophos AV for its Mac and PC support in one admin console.Educational pricing was quite good, and the support (the few times we needed it) has been good also.I haven't had as much luck getting rid of Backup Exec - everything I've tried has been worse that BE.
So, for now, BE stays.Symantec, you are losing market share not due to free alternatives, but because you SUCK.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28588965</id>
	<title>OMG!!! its norton RUN!!!!</title>
	<author>Inconnux</author>
	<datestamp>1246791660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first thing I do with any system is dump any product that has 'Norton' on it.  Give me a 'free' anti virus any day over Symantec malware.  Manufacturers please please please! take note... stop 'preinstalling' symantec crapware on your systems!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first thing I do with any system is dump any product that has 'Norton ' on it .
Give me a 'free ' anti virus any day over Symantec malware .
Manufacturers please please please !
take note... stop 'preinstalling ' symantec crapware on your systems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first thing I do with any system is dump any product that has 'Norton' on it.
Give me a 'free' anti virus any day over Symantec malware.
Manufacturers please please please!
take note... stop 'preinstalling' symantec crapware on your systems!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586001</id>
	<title>Re:I don't even use antivirus...</title>
	<author>node159</author>
	<datestamp>1246803660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not running as Admin will stop most malware/viruses dead in there tracks.</p><p>Combined with using on-demand scanners for the odd suspicious file and you'll be fine.</p><p>The detection rate on popular AV software is shockingly bad from what I have seen when using Virustotal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not running as Admin will stop most malware/viruses dead in there tracks.Combined with using on-demand scanners for the odd suspicious file and you 'll be fine.The detection rate on popular AV software is shockingly bad from what I have seen when using Virustotal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not running as Admin will stop most malware/viruses dead in there tracks.Combined with using on-demand scanners for the odd suspicious file and you'll be fine.The detection rate on popular AV software is shockingly bad from what I have seen when using Virustotal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28587787</id>
	<title>Re:Be Afraid! Buy Our Product!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246824780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I check sites like AV-Comparatives.  I currently use Antvir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I check sites like AV-Comparatives .
I currently use Antvir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I check sites like AV-Comparatives.
I currently use Antvir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246720200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF man.  You actually get viruses often enough on your personal system and your mom's system that you can draw comparisons?</p><p>I think you are doing something horribly wrong.  I haven't had a virus in 15 years or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF man .
You actually get viruses often enough on your personal system and your mom 's system that you can draw comparisons ? I think you are doing something horribly wrong .
I have n't had a virus in 15 years or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF man.
You actually get viruses often enough on your personal system and your mom's system that you can draw comparisons?I think you are doing something horribly wrong.
I haven't had a virus in 15 years or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579969</id>
	<title>OT: had to install AVs on Linux servers for PCIDSS</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1246721160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just had to install ClamAV on a few hundred Linux servers just to satisfy PCI-DSS requirement. Before PCI v1.2 it explicitly stated that AVs might no be necessary on Unix systems. Now it doesn't; it just needs to be installed "where applicable" or somesuch.<br>My guess is that they had been lobbied by the scumbags at Microsoft or Symantec.<br>Evidently, it's completely pointless. But the scumbags will point you to a few POCs that have never been *seen* in the wild.<br>The problem is that all AVs have vulnerabilities at one point or another, and that they could be used to gain access to elevate privileges, while giving absolutely NO, ZERO, NADA benefit for Linux servers.<br>And btw: I'm talking about VIRUSES. Not other forms of malware. There is malware on Linux. Just viruses. We do scan for rootkits with Ossec; but since it's not an "antivirus," we can't check the goddamn box.<br>So we check our Linux servers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... mostly for windows viruses. Awesome. Especially considering that it's on a completely isolated network with 0 Windows client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had to install ClamAV on a few hundred Linux servers just to satisfy PCI-DSS requirement .
Before PCI v1.2 it explicitly stated that AVs might no be necessary on Unix systems .
Now it does n't ; it just needs to be installed " where applicable " or somesuch.My guess is that they had been lobbied by the scumbags at Microsoft or Symantec.Evidently , it 's completely pointless .
But the scumbags will point you to a few POCs that have never been * seen * in the wild.The problem is that all AVs have vulnerabilities at one point or another , and that they could be used to gain access to elevate privileges , while giving absolutely NO , ZERO , NADA benefit for Linux servers.And btw : I 'm talking about VIRUSES .
Not other forms of malware .
There is malware on Linux .
Just viruses .
We do scan for rootkits with Ossec ; but since it 's not an " antivirus , " we ca n't check the goddamn box.So we check our Linux servers ... mostly for windows viruses .
Awesome. Especially considering that it 's on a completely isolated network with 0 Windows client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had to install ClamAV on a few hundred Linux servers just to satisfy PCI-DSS requirement.
Before PCI v1.2 it explicitly stated that AVs might no be necessary on Unix systems.
Now it doesn't; it just needs to be installed "where applicable" or somesuch.My guess is that they had been lobbied by the scumbags at Microsoft or Symantec.Evidently, it's completely pointless.
But the scumbags will point you to a few POCs that have never been *seen* in the wild.The problem is that all AVs have vulnerabilities at one point or another, and that they could be used to gain access to elevate privileges, while giving absolutely NO, ZERO, NADA benefit for Linux servers.And btw: I'm talking about VIRUSES.
Not other forms of malware.
There is malware on Linux.
Just viruses.
We do scan for rootkits with Ossec; but since it's not an "antivirus," we can't check the goddamn box.So we check our Linux servers ... mostly for windows viruses.
Awesome. Especially considering that it's on a completely isolated network with 0 Windows client.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580131</id>
	<title>Parent=Outdated information...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symantec has cleaned up their performance and bloat issues in internet security 2009. I have some machines running Norton, some running McAfee, using freeware stuff like Spybot, AVG and NoScript as additional lines of defense. Norton is definitely faster and smaller than McAfee this year and doesn't put perceptible overhead on any of the machines where I have it installed, including the old Athlon single core. McAfee chews up a full core of a CPU for a minute or so when it installs updates and the full scan can take days.</p><p>The detection rates for both are still mediocre, but those vary from month to month and vendor to vendor so much that I accept anything in the 95-99\% detection range. There are too many new threats to rely on reported detection rates that are more than a couple of months old. The only major vendor that I've completely ruled out for a while is CA, and a few years ago they had the best detection rates in the (pay) industry. Compensate for mediocre detection by multi-layer defenses: NoScript to prevent website attacks, Spybot to provide a cross-check against spyware (especially "commercial" spyware that commercial vendors turn a blind eye to) and so on.</p><p>On the other hand, the Symantec exec IS spreading FUD saying that the free stuff can't do the job. I just ignore that kind of crap, it's endemic to the industry. The main reason I pay for commercial products is convenience (all other things being equal on the quality front). The free stuff is either nagware that  wants you to upgrade to a pay version or it isn't an integrated suite, so I have to monitor separate installations for Antivirus, Anti-spyware, Intrusion Detection, Firewall and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec has cleaned up their performance and bloat issues in internet security 2009 .
I have some machines running Norton , some running McAfee , using freeware stuff like Spybot , AVG and NoScript as additional lines of defense .
Norton is definitely faster and smaller than McAfee this year and does n't put perceptible overhead on any of the machines where I have it installed , including the old Athlon single core .
McAfee chews up a full core of a CPU for a minute or so when it installs updates and the full scan can take days.The detection rates for both are still mediocre , but those vary from month to month and vendor to vendor so much that I accept anything in the 95-99 \ % detection range .
There are too many new threats to rely on reported detection rates that are more than a couple of months old .
The only major vendor that I 've completely ruled out for a while is CA , and a few years ago they had the best detection rates in the ( pay ) industry .
Compensate for mediocre detection by multi-layer defenses : NoScript to prevent website attacks , Spybot to provide a cross-check against spyware ( especially " commercial " spyware that commercial vendors turn a blind eye to ) and so on.On the other hand , the Symantec exec IS spreading FUD saying that the free stuff ca n't do the job .
I just ignore that kind of crap , it 's endemic to the industry .
The main reason I pay for commercial products is convenience ( all other things being equal on the quality front ) .
The free stuff is either nagware that wants you to upgrade to a pay version or it is n't an integrated suite , so I have to monitor separate installations for Antivirus , Anti-spyware , Intrusion Detection , Firewall and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec has cleaned up their performance and bloat issues in internet security 2009.
I have some machines running Norton, some running McAfee, using freeware stuff like Spybot, AVG and NoScript as additional lines of defense.
Norton is definitely faster and smaller than McAfee this year and doesn't put perceptible overhead on any of the machines where I have it installed, including the old Athlon single core.
McAfee chews up a full core of a CPU for a minute or so when it installs updates and the full scan can take days.The detection rates for both are still mediocre, but those vary from month to month and vendor to vendor so much that I accept anything in the 95-99\% detection range.
There are too many new threats to rely on reported detection rates that are more than a couple of months old.
The only major vendor that I've completely ruled out for a while is CA, and a few years ago they had the best detection rates in the (pay) industry.
Compensate for mediocre detection by multi-layer defenses: NoScript to prevent website attacks, Spybot to provide a cross-check against spyware (especially "commercial" spyware that commercial vendors turn a blind eye to) and so on.On the other hand, the Symantec exec IS spreading FUD saying that the free stuff can't do the job.
I just ignore that kind of crap, it's endemic to the industry.
The main reason I pay for commercial products is convenience (all other things being equal on the quality front).
The free stuff is either nagware that  wants you to upgrade to a pay version or it isn't an integrated suite, so I have to monitor separate installations for Antivirus, Anti-spyware, Intrusion Detection, Firewall and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583319</id>
	<title>Re:Parent=Outdated information...</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1246711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to be a devil's advocate here:</p><p>I have found that Symantec Endpoint Protection does quite well on modern hardware, especially if you get the latest version update which helps with a lot of various CPU-eating bugs.  For older hardware, I recommend Avast! which is very lightweight, especially on boxes with 1GB of RAM or less.</p><p>For organizations, I would recommend they make sure their antivirus solution is ICSA [1] labs certified.  AVG, Avast!, Mcafee, and Symantec/Norton are on this list.  Because of this certification, this does well for claiming that a product meets "due diligence" should an audit happen (IANAL, of course.)</p><p>However, when you start going from a few PCs to the hundreds, you need to have a way to show from a central console that every PC on your network not just has an antivirus program installed and current, but its configured to abide by contract stipulations, and corporate regulations.  This is where Symantec Endpoint Protection is good.  Because it is the "corporate" version (where the big hammer of the BSA is a far bigger deterrent to piracy than any activation or subscription methods), SEP doesn't care if a subscription is in date or out of date, it grabs updates and applies them.  Come audit time, one can make a nice printout of all the boxes on the corporate LANs, and how they are locked down in a matter of minutes.</p><p>Another advantage of SEP is that its installable on servers without requiring a specific "enterprise" version.  You msiexec<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/i the SEP install file, assign the server to a management group (or create a dummy one), run an update, and are done for the most part.  SEP is smart enough not to install the more intrusive process scanning stuff on a server, but still will provide filesystem and network protection.</p><p>As for the free A/V stuff the Symantec exec states, the key is to consider your threat model on your computer.  Someone who has a hardware firewalling router, runs as a limited user (or knows exactly what the UAC dialog is popping up), runs with proper browser security can get by with almost anything, as the A/V program is last ditch protection, rather than having to compensate for an inexperienced user's mistakes.  If you are dealing with multiple users in a household, something more full featured such as Norton or SEP would be a good thing.  SEP would be more proactive with grabbing infected downloads out of the clutches of the Web browser before they could do damage, as well as catching security holes that should have been patched, but are not.</p><p>Usual disclaimers apply.  YMMV and IANAL come to mind.</p><p>[1]:  Of course, ICSA is a subsidiary of Verizon, but they are independent enough that the fact that a product is certified with them is a very good thing to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to be a devil 's advocate here : I have found that Symantec Endpoint Protection does quite well on modern hardware , especially if you get the latest version update which helps with a lot of various CPU-eating bugs .
For older hardware , I recommend Avast !
which is very lightweight , especially on boxes with 1GB of RAM or less.For organizations , I would recommend they make sure their antivirus solution is ICSA [ 1 ] labs certified .
AVG , Avast ! , Mcafee , and Symantec/Norton are on this list .
Because of this certification , this does well for claiming that a product meets " due diligence " should an audit happen ( IANAL , of course .
) However , when you start going from a few PCs to the hundreds , you need to have a way to show from a central console that every PC on your network not just has an antivirus program installed and current , but its configured to abide by contract stipulations , and corporate regulations .
This is where Symantec Endpoint Protection is good .
Because it is the " corporate " version ( where the big hammer of the BSA is a far bigger deterrent to piracy than any activation or subscription methods ) , SEP does n't care if a subscription is in date or out of date , it grabs updates and applies them .
Come audit time , one can make a nice printout of all the boxes on the corporate LANs , and how they are locked down in a matter of minutes.Another advantage of SEP is that its installable on servers without requiring a specific " enterprise " version .
You msiexec /i the SEP install file , assign the server to a management group ( or create a dummy one ) , run an update , and are done for the most part .
SEP is smart enough not to install the more intrusive process scanning stuff on a server , but still will provide filesystem and network protection.As for the free A/V stuff the Symantec exec states , the key is to consider your threat model on your computer .
Someone who has a hardware firewalling router , runs as a limited user ( or knows exactly what the UAC dialog is popping up ) , runs with proper browser security can get by with almost anything , as the A/V program is last ditch protection , rather than having to compensate for an inexperienced user 's mistakes .
If you are dealing with multiple users in a household , something more full featured such as Norton or SEP would be a good thing .
SEP would be more proactive with grabbing infected downloads out of the clutches of the Web browser before they could do damage , as well as catching security holes that should have been patched , but are not.Usual disclaimers apply .
YMMV and IANAL come to mind .
[ 1 ] : Of course , ICSA is a subsidiary of Verizon , but they are independent enough that the fact that a product is certified with them is a very good thing to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to be a devil's advocate here:I have found that Symantec Endpoint Protection does quite well on modern hardware, especially if you get the latest version update which helps with a lot of various CPU-eating bugs.
For older hardware, I recommend Avast!
which is very lightweight, especially on boxes with 1GB of RAM or less.For organizations, I would recommend they make sure their antivirus solution is ICSA [1] labs certified.
AVG, Avast!, Mcafee, and Symantec/Norton are on this list.
Because of this certification, this does well for claiming that a product meets "due diligence" should an audit happen (IANAL, of course.
)However, when you start going from a few PCs to the hundreds, you need to have a way to show from a central console that every PC on your network not just has an antivirus program installed and current, but its configured to abide by contract stipulations, and corporate regulations.
This is where Symantec Endpoint Protection is good.
Because it is the "corporate" version (where the big hammer of the BSA is a far bigger deterrent to piracy than any activation or subscription methods), SEP doesn't care if a subscription is in date or out of date, it grabs updates and applies them.
Come audit time, one can make a nice printout of all the boxes on the corporate LANs, and how they are locked down in a matter of minutes.Another advantage of SEP is that its installable on servers without requiring a specific "enterprise" version.
You msiexec /i the SEP install file, assign the server to a management group (or create a dummy one), run an update, and are done for the most part.
SEP is smart enough not to install the more intrusive process scanning stuff on a server, but still will provide filesystem and network protection.As for the free A/V stuff the Symantec exec states, the key is to consider your threat model on your computer.
Someone who has a hardware firewalling router, runs as a limited user (or knows exactly what the UAC dialog is popping up), runs with proper browser security can get by with almost anything, as the A/V program is last ditch protection, rather than having to compensate for an inexperienced user's mistakes.
If you are dealing with multiple users in a household, something more full featured such as Norton or SEP would be a good thing.
SEP would be more proactive with grabbing infected downloads out of the clutches of the Web browser before they could do damage, as well as catching security holes that should have been patched, but are not.Usual disclaimers apply.
YMMV and IANAL come to mind.
[1]:  Of course, ICSA is a subsidiary of Verizon, but they are independent enough that the fact that a product is certified with them is a very good thing to have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580679</id>
	<title>Homeopathic Virus Scan</title>
	<author>keithburgun</author>
	<datestamp>1246727520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps what we need is to dilute a very small virus into a 120 gigabyte text file, over and over and over, and then run it in AUTOEXEC.BAT, that should solve it</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps what we need is to dilute a very small virus into a 120 gigabyte text file , over and over and over , and then run it in AUTOEXEC.BAT , that should solve it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps what we need is to dilute a very small virus into a 120 gigabyte text file, over and over and over, and then run it in AUTOEXEC.BAT, that should solve it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583387</id>
	<title>So secure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246712520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it funny how two (out of five possible) of the related stories in the article are about Systematec's software destroying user's files.<br>And one about a worm exploiting their software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it funny how two ( out of five possible ) of the related stories in the article are about Systematec 's software destroying user 's files.And one about a worm exploiting their software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it funny how two (out of five possible) of the related stories in the article are about Systematec's software destroying user's files.And one about a worm exploiting their software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579661</id>
	<title>Antivirus-free for 15 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246718040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free of free antivirus, paid antivirus and viruses, because I want my computer's CPU to do something useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free of free antivirus , paid antivirus and viruses , because I want my computer 's CPU to do something useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free of free antivirus, paid antivirus and viruses, because I want my computer's CPU to do something useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579979</id>
	<title>Such a statement from Symantec?</title>
	<author>Warlord88</author>
	<datestamp>1246721280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am Jack 's complete lack of surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579699</id>
	<title>Getting the protection you need?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246718460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Symantec's product does this? A good 1/2 of the people i have to go clean messes up are running that damned Norton.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Symantec 's product does this ?
A good 1/2 of the people i have to go clean messes up are running that damned Norton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Symantec's product does this?
A good 1/2 of the people i have to go clean messes up are running that damned Norton.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580733</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Kees Van Loo-Macklin</author>
	<datestamp>1246727940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not just AV software.   The entire software industry operates this way.</p><p> <b>1.</b>  Shovel feature-rich bug-ware onto unsuspecting schlubs to build "brand" (especially in the enterprise/IT market where the person purchasing the software is often not the person who has to use it, so they make decisions based on feature list and brand name rather than quality)
<b>2.</b>  Wait for hobbyists, researchers, or smaller companies to figure out how to do it right
<b>3.</b>  Buy their companies
<b>4.</b>  Repeat</p><p>Remember when Norton was actually decent?  It was before Symantec bought them.  After the acquisition, Symantec went back to Step 1 and gradually bloated and encrapified the antivirus.  Now they are on Step 2.  I wouldn't be surprised if they bought up someone like TrendMicro soon, spouting promises of a glorious and euphoria-inducing Norton/PC-cillin integration.</p><p>
 -- 77IM</p></div><p>They already have, they bought up Sygate and shut it down, since it was competing with their firewall product. Now they are supposedly impementing some of sygate's technologies, but honestly I just no longer trust Nortons products.

<a href="http://www.symantec.com/norton/sygate/index.jsp" title="symantec.com" rel="nofollow">Sygate Personal Firewall</a> [symantec.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just AV software .
The entire software industry operates this way .
1. Shovel feature-rich bug-ware onto unsuspecting schlubs to build " brand " ( especially in the enterprise/IT market where the person purchasing the software is often not the person who has to use it , so they make decisions based on feature list and brand name rather than quality ) 2 .
Wait for hobbyists , researchers , or smaller companies to figure out how to do it right 3 .
Buy their companies 4 .
RepeatRemember when Norton was actually decent ?
It was before Symantec bought them .
After the acquisition , Symantec went back to Step 1 and gradually bloated and encrapified the antivirus .
Now they are on Step 2 .
I would n't be surprised if they bought up someone like TrendMicro soon , spouting promises of a glorious and euphoria-inducing Norton/PC-cillin integration .
-- 77IMThey already have , they bought up Sygate and shut it down , since it was competing with their firewall product .
Now they are supposedly impementing some of sygate 's technologies , but honestly I just no longer trust Nortons products .
Sygate Personal Firewall [ symantec.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just AV software.
The entire software industry operates this way.
1.  Shovel feature-rich bug-ware onto unsuspecting schlubs to build "brand" (especially in the enterprise/IT market where the person purchasing the software is often not the person who has to use it, so they make decisions based on feature list and brand name rather than quality)
2.
Wait for hobbyists, researchers, or smaller companies to figure out how to do it right
3.
Buy their companies
4.
RepeatRemember when Norton was actually decent?
It was before Symantec bought them.
After the acquisition, Symantec went back to Step 1 and gradually bloated and encrapified the antivirus.
Now they are on Step 2.
I wouldn't be surprised if they bought up someone like TrendMicro soon, spouting promises of a glorious and euphoria-inducing Norton/PC-cillin integration.
-- 77IMThey already have, they bought up Sygate and shut it down, since it was competing with their firewall product.
Now they are supposedly impementing some of sygate's technologies, but honestly I just no longer trust Nortons products.
Sygate Personal Firewall [symantec.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579883</id>
	<title>You don't need AV</title>
	<author>stmok</author>
	<datestamp>1246720260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I used Windows XP Pro (I now use CentOS and Debian), I set the system up such that I didn't need AV...I basically applied what I learned from Linux.<br>
<br>
That is...<br>
(1) Set up a Limited User Account (LUA)<br>
(2) Software Restriction Policy (OR if you're using XP Home; use =&gt; <a href="http://www.beyondlogic.org/solutions/trust-no-exe/trust-no-exe.htm" title="beyondlogic.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.beyondlogic.org/solutions/trust-no-exe/trust-no-exe.htm</a> [beyondlogic.org] instead)<br>
(3) Install only the apps you need.<br>
(4) Online Armor Free Edition. (Software Firewall with HIPS...ie: It warns you something is trying to execute or "dial out", and gives you the option to stop it.)<br>
(5) Removed or disabled Services, etc you know you'll never use.<br>
<br>
Of course, the "Cons" to this approach is that XP isn't forgiving when it comes to using LUA...So you have to use something like SuRUN to allow certain apps to run with Admin privileges. A little testing is required before putting it into "production use". <br>
<br>
Complement the above with "security aware" computing habits, and you're largely fine. (I used AutoPatcher to pull down updates).<br>
<br>
I set this approach up for my dad's XP box and spent a few hours with him on correcting his poor computing habits. This was in early 2008. Its been a year. No infection or complaints from him. He can still use his PC, but he's now much better off than most people.<br>
<br>
I don't trust AV implementations for 3 reasons:<br>
(1) AV companies use FUD because most people are ignorant on computer security matters.<br>
(2) AV apps are cures to a problem, not prevention. As long as people continue with cures, AV companies remain profitable.<br>
(3) They have been proven unreliable in the real world. (You are reacting to threats! You are already at a tactical disadvantage!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I used Windows XP Pro ( I now use CentOS and Debian ) , I set the system up such that I did n't need AV...I basically applied what I learned from Linux .
That is.. . ( 1 ) Set up a Limited User Account ( LUA ) ( 2 ) Software Restriction Policy ( OR if you 're using XP Home ; use = &gt; http : //www.beyondlogic.org/solutions/trust-no-exe/trust-no-exe.htm [ beyondlogic.org ] instead ) ( 3 ) Install only the apps you need .
( 4 ) Online Armor Free Edition .
( Software Firewall with HIPS...ie : It warns you something is trying to execute or " dial out " , and gives you the option to stop it .
) ( 5 ) Removed or disabled Services , etc you know you 'll never use .
Of course , the " Cons " to this approach is that XP is n't forgiving when it comes to using LUA...So you have to use something like SuRUN to allow certain apps to run with Admin privileges .
A little testing is required before putting it into " production use " .
Complement the above with " security aware " computing habits , and you 're largely fine .
( I used AutoPatcher to pull down updates ) .
I set this approach up for my dad 's XP box and spent a few hours with him on correcting his poor computing habits .
This was in early 2008 .
Its been a year .
No infection or complaints from him .
He can still use his PC , but he 's now much better off than most people .
I do n't trust AV implementations for 3 reasons : ( 1 ) AV companies use FUD because most people are ignorant on computer security matters .
( 2 ) AV apps are cures to a problem , not prevention .
As long as people continue with cures , AV companies remain profitable .
( 3 ) They have been proven unreliable in the real world .
( You are reacting to threats !
You are already at a tactical disadvantage !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I used Windows XP Pro (I now use CentOS and Debian), I set the system up such that I didn't need AV...I basically applied what I learned from Linux.
That is...
(1) Set up a Limited User Account (LUA)
(2) Software Restriction Policy (OR if you're using XP Home; use =&gt; http://www.beyondlogic.org/solutions/trust-no-exe/trust-no-exe.htm [beyondlogic.org] instead)
(3) Install only the apps you need.
(4) Online Armor Free Edition.
(Software Firewall with HIPS...ie: It warns you something is trying to execute or "dial out", and gives you the option to stop it.
)
(5) Removed or disabled Services, etc you know you'll never use.
Of course, the "Cons" to this approach is that XP isn't forgiving when it comes to using LUA...So you have to use something like SuRUN to allow certain apps to run with Admin privileges.
A little testing is required before putting it into "production use".
Complement the above with "security aware" computing habits, and you're largely fine.
(I used AutoPatcher to pull down updates).
I set this approach up for my dad's XP box and spent a few hours with him on correcting his poor computing habits.
This was in early 2008.
Its been a year.
No infection or complaints from him.
He can still use his PC, but he's now much better off than most people.
I don't trust AV implementations for 3 reasons:
(1) AV companies use FUD because most people are ignorant on computer security matters.
(2) AV apps are cures to a problem, not prevention.
As long as people continue with cures, AV companies remain profitable.
(3) They have been proven unreliable in the real world.
(You are reacting to threats!
You are already at a tactical disadvantage!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580051</id>
	<title>How ironic...</title>
	<author>NightWulf</author>
	<datestamp>1246721940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That they say this right after McAfee VirusScan turned a lot of PC's into bricks.</p><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/mcafee\_false\_positive\_glitch/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/mcafee\_false\_positive\_glitch/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That they say this right after McAfee VirusScan turned a lot of PC 's into bricks.http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/mcafee \ _false \ _positive \ _glitch/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That they say this right after McAfee VirusScan turned a lot of PC's into bricks.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/mcafee\_false\_positive\_glitch/ [theregister.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580179</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>loom\_weaver</author>
	<datestamp>1246723080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business. There's something deeply wrong with that.</p></div><p>They stay in business because most users don't understand computers and are afraid.</p><p>I've cleaned up a few computers and whenever I mention that I don't even use anti-virus software they look at me in horror and say they could never do that.  They also have the mistaken belief that as long as they have Norton installed that their computer is magically safe.  They would happily trade 50\% performance for that mistaken feeling of security.</p><p>It's pretty sad actually.  Does anyone have suggestions on the best way to educate and protect these terrified users?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business .
There 's something deeply wrong with that.They stay in business because most users do n't understand computers and are afraid.I 've cleaned up a few computers and whenever I mention that I do n't even use anti-virus software they look at me in horror and say they could never do that .
They also have the mistaken belief that as long as they have Norton installed that their computer is magically safe .
They would happily trade 50 \ % performance for that mistaken feeling of security.It 's pretty sad actually .
Does anyone have suggestions on the best way to educate and protect these terrified users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business.
There's something deeply wrong with that.They stay in business because most users don't understand computers and are afraid.I've cleaned up a few computers and whenever I mention that I don't even use anti-virus software they look at me in horror and say they could never do that.
They also have the mistaken belief that as long as they have Norton installed that their computer is magically safe.
They would happily trade 50\% performance for that mistaken feeling of security.It's pretty sad actually.
Does anyone have suggestions on the best way to educate and protect these terrified users?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580833</id>
	<title>I go back a long way with this stuff....</title>
	<author>CFD339</author>
	<datestamp>1246728840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm one of those guys that used to walk around with a boot diskette that had the original  scan and clean on them.</p><p>There is no question that I'd use either Symantec's product or McAfee's product if they were actually better in my opinion.     I find other products much better choices -- the free ones in particular.  It isn't just price.  The performance and the intrusiveness of those commercial programs is abysmal.   They cram themselves into your systems so intricately to "defend themselves" that if anything goes wrong you have to blow away the whole stack and start over.  Most viruses and spyware is easier to get rid of than the anti-malware software.</p><p>How many times have you found users unable to connect to the net, only to discover they (horror of horrors) they've installed a SECOND anti-virus without removing the first?  Now the whole thing comes uncu\_\_ed.</p><p>Look, I love linux for my servers, but at the desktop I still use Windoze.  If there's one thing that will eventually drive me to switch, it's the way Microsoft and (and as a result all the others) have gone and built the thing in such a byzantine way.   There's no way to even really know what needs to be fixed in Vista when something breaks -- and if it did, you don't have "root" access to go and do it.  That means the problems caused by these anti-virus packages will now be all but irreparable.</p><p>We'll see.  For now, desktops around here are xp with avast anti-virus and running quite well.   If windows 7 doesn't turn out to be much better than vista for an ability to fix as much as for useability, it will finally push me to move to a linux desktop as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm one of those guys that used to walk around with a boot diskette that had the original scan and clean on them.There is no question that I 'd use either Symantec 's product or McAfee 's product if they were actually better in my opinion .
I find other products much better choices -- the free ones in particular .
It is n't just price .
The performance and the intrusiveness of those commercial programs is abysmal .
They cram themselves into your systems so intricately to " defend themselves " that if anything goes wrong you have to blow away the whole stack and start over .
Most viruses and spyware is easier to get rid of than the anti-malware software.How many times have you found users unable to connect to the net , only to discover they ( horror of horrors ) they 've installed a SECOND anti-virus without removing the first ?
Now the whole thing comes uncu \ _ \ _ed.Look , I love linux for my servers , but at the desktop I still use Windoze .
If there 's one thing that will eventually drive me to switch , it 's the way Microsoft and ( and as a result all the others ) have gone and built the thing in such a byzantine way .
There 's no way to even really know what needs to be fixed in Vista when something breaks -- and if it did , you do n't have " root " access to go and do it .
That means the problems caused by these anti-virus packages will now be all but irreparable.We 'll see .
For now , desktops around here are xp with avast anti-virus and running quite well .
If windows 7 does n't turn out to be much better than vista for an ability to fix as much as for useability , it will finally push me to move to a linux desktop as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm one of those guys that used to walk around with a boot diskette that had the original  scan and clean on them.There is no question that I'd use either Symantec's product or McAfee's product if they were actually better in my opinion.
I find other products much better choices -- the free ones in particular.
It isn't just price.
The performance and the intrusiveness of those commercial programs is abysmal.
They cram themselves into your systems so intricately to "defend themselves" that if anything goes wrong you have to blow away the whole stack and start over.
Most viruses and spyware is easier to get rid of than the anti-malware software.How many times have you found users unable to connect to the net, only to discover they (horror of horrors) they've installed a SECOND anti-virus without removing the first?
Now the whole thing comes uncu\_\_ed.Look, I love linux for my servers, but at the desktop I still use Windoze.
If there's one thing that will eventually drive me to switch, it's the way Microsoft and (and as a result all the others) have gone and built the thing in such a byzantine way.
There's no way to even really know what needs to be fixed in Vista when something breaks -- and if it did, you don't have "root" access to go and do it.
That means the problems caused by these anti-virus packages will now be all but irreparable.We'll see.
For now, desktops around here are xp with avast anti-virus and running quite well.
If windows 7 doesn't turn out to be much better than vista for an ability to fix as much as for useability, it will finally push me to move to a linux desktop as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582621</id>
	<title>Other systems</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1246702680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people are still silly enough to use a broken system that NEEDS an antivirus. If they had chosen a system that wasn't susceptible due to better security practises by default, and that it was extremely difficult to get a virus on, (such as a system with clean repositories that requires you to be a normal user, not an admin) the problem would largely solve itself. And these systems are often available for free! What gives?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are still silly enough to use a broken system that NEEDS an antivirus .
If they had chosen a system that was n't susceptible due to better security practises by default , and that it was extremely difficult to get a virus on , ( such as a system with clean repositories that requires you to be a normal user , not an admin ) the problem would largely solve itself .
And these systems are often available for free !
What gives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are still silly enough to use a broken system that NEEDS an antivirus.
If they had chosen a system that wasn't susceptible due to better security practises by default, and that it was extremely difficult to get a virus on, (such as a system with clean repositories that requires you to be a normal user, not an admin) the problem would largely solve itself.
And these systems are often available for free!
What gives?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580075</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>Dremth</author>
	<datestamp>1246722180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is paying for anti-virus software not illegal? Paying for protection; sounds a little bit like the mafia, huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is paying for anti-virus software not illegal ?
Paying for protection ; sounds a little bit like the mafia , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is paying for anti-virus software not illegal?
Paying for protection; sounds a little bit like the mafia, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585525</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1246793640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm... REALLY tempted to drop that into a debugger. Yeah, I'd be working without symbols, but the relevant assembly probably isn't that hard to figure out. Anything that can make a program crash should be assumed to be an exploitable vulnerability until proved otherwise. What an incredible joke if installing Norton actually <b>opened up a kernel-level security vulnerability</b>! (If it actually brings down the network stack... well, that's running at ring-0, and a driver crash can take down the whole system.)</p><p>A few years ago, Norton would crash randomly, typically causing a BSOD when it did. These days it isn't as bad, but one place their record has been fairly good is that the software itself has been secure. If there's a repeatable crash, though... that's a major potential vulnerability right there, <b>especially</b> if you can trigger it with standard user permissions!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm... REALLY tempted to drop that into a debugger .
Yeah , I 'd be working without symbols , but the relevant assembly probably is n't that hard to figure out .
Anything that can make a program crash should be assumed to be an exploitable vulnerability until proved otherwise .
What an incredible joke if installing Norton actually opened up a kernel-level security vulnerability !
( If it actually brings down the network stack... well , that 's running at ring-0 , and a driver crash can take down the whole system .
) A few years ago , Norton would crash randomly , typically causing a BSOD when it did .
These days it is n't as bad , but one place their record has been fairly good is that the software itself has been secure .
If there 's a repeatable crash , though... that 's a major potential vulnerability right there , especially if you can trigger it with standard user permissions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm... REALLY tempted to drop that into a debugger.
Yeah, I'd be working without symbols, but the relevant assembly probably isn't that hard to figure out.
Anything that can make a program crash should be assumed to be an exploitable vulnerability until proved otherwise.
What an incredible joke if installing Norton actually opened up a kernel-level security vulnerability!
(If it actually brings down the network stack... well, that's running at ring-0, and a driver crash can take down the whole system.
)A few years ago, Norton would crash randomly, typically causing a BSOD when it did.
These days it isn't as bad, but one place their record has been fairly good is that the software itself has been secure.
If there's a repeatable crash, though... that's a major potential vulnerability right there, especially if you can trigger it with standard user permissions!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580061</id>
	<title>Top of the world no more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symantec is fumbling big time.  I know where I work (large government organization), Symantec (and its new bride, Veritas) are seriously on the outs.  Too expensive, doesn't work well, and doesn't provide protection to meet regulatory mandates.</p><p>Furthermore, my home ISP reached a deal with McAfee.  I can download McAfee for up to three PCs, just because I pay the bill for my cable modem.  The last two PCs I bought also came bundled with something other than Symantec.</p><p>Market share dropping?  Crank up the FUD machine, boys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec is fumbling big time .
I know where I work ( large government organization ) , Symantec ( and its new bride , Veritas ) are seriously on the outs .
Too expensive , does n't work well , and does n't provide protection to meet regulatory mandates.Furthermore , my home ISP reached a deal with McAfee .
I can download McAfee for up to three PCs , just because I pay the bill for my cable modem .
The last two PCs I bought also came bundled with something other than Symantec.Market share dropping ?
Crank up the FUD machine , boys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec is fumbling big time.
I know where I work (large government organization), Symantec (and its new bride, Veritas) are seriously on the outs.
Too expensive, doesn't work well, and doesn't provide protection to meet regulatory mandates.Furthermore, my home ISP reached a deal with McAfee.
I can download McAfee for up to three PCs, just because I pay the bill for my cable modem.
The last two PCs I bought also came bundled with something other than Symantec.Market share dropping?
Crank up the FUD machine, boys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580341</id>
	<title>If it works</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1246724520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares if it is free or you pay a subscription.  I use Nod32, and pay for it, but I know many people who are happy with AVG, which is free.
If you read places like the VB100 list, you'll see Symantec would be better served by beefing up their product, instead of poo-poo'ing the competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares if it is free or you pay a subscription .
I use Nod32 , and pay for it , but I know many people who are happy with AVG , which is free .
If you read places like the VB100 list , you 'll see Symantec would be better served by beefing up their product , instead of poo-poo'ing the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares if it is free or you pay a subscription.
I use Nod32, and pay for it, but I know many people who are happy with AVG, which is free.
If you read places like the VB100 list, you'll see Symantec would be better served by beefing up their product, instead of poo-poo'ing the competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of those posts aren't current, but let me assure you that Symantec Endpoint Protection still does this shit.</p><p>We use it at work, and I've discovered the suite does something really retarded:<br>There's a part of it they call "network threat protection"; because of the overblown name, it took me a bit of googling to figure out that the thing is literally nothing more than a cheap little firewall. However, unlike <i>real</i> firewalls, if you do something it doesn't like - run the FTP client that comes with Windows, run the Windows wget binary, try to install a program over the network, try to use certain software - it will <b>crash</b>. And when it crashes, it will take down the entire Windows network stack. And when the Windows network stack goes down, the computer becomes unusable and you have to cut the power.</p><p>Note that this isn't some sort of retarded blocking behavior; although NTP is installed, the traffic rules are set to basically "block two or three inconsequential things, allow otherwise". We ended up having to uninstall it on the computers of the people who were most affected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of those posts are n't current , but let me assure you that Symantec Endpoint Protection still does this shit.We use it at work , and I 've discovered the suite does something really retarded : There 's a part of it they call " network threat protection " ; because of the overblown name , it took me a bit of googling to figure out that the thing is literally nothing more than a cheap little firewall .
However , unlike real firewalls , if you do something it does n't like - run the FTP client that comes with Windows , run the Windows wget binary , try to install a program over the network , try to use certain software - it will crash .
And when it crashes , it will take down the entire Windows network stack .
And when the Windows network stack goes down , the computer becomes unusable and you have to cut the power.Note that this is n't some sort of retarded blocking behavior ; although NTP is installed , the traffic rules are set to basically " block two or three inconsequential things , allow otherwise " .
We ended up having to uninstall it on the computers of the people who were most affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of those posts aren't current, but let me assure you that Symantec Endpoint Protection still does this shit.We use it at work, and I've discovered the suite does something really retarded:There's a part of it they call "network threat protection"; because of the overblown name, it took me a bit of googling to figure out that the thing is literally nothing more than a cheap little firewall.
However, unlike real firewalls, if you do something it doesn't like - run the FTP client that comes with Windows, run the Windows wget binary, try to install a program over the network, try to use certain software - it will crash.
And when it crashes, it will take down the entire Windows network stack.
And when the Windows network stack goes down, the computer becomes unusable and you have to cut the power.Note that this isn't some sort of retarded blocking behavior; although NTP is installed, the traffic rules are set to basically "block two or three inconsequential things, allow otherwise".
We ended up having to uninstall it on the computers of the people who were most affected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581327</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>DarkHorseman</author>
	<datestamp>1246732560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I was speaking of the fact that It has caught maybe two or three serious infections, and removed them successfully, but my mom's however is running terribly slow and she is restricted from command prompt, regedit, and changing the background from telling her that she needs to buy XPAntiVirus 2009.

I've removed the infections manually from hers, but if she'd just invest in a decent AV program, it prolly wouldn't be infected now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I was speaking of the fact that It has caught maybe two or three serious infections , and removed them successfully , but my mom 's however is running terribly slow and she is restricted from command prompt , regedit , and changing the background from telling her that she needs to buy XPAntiVirus 2009 .
I 've removed the infections manually from hers , but if she 'd just invest in a decent AV program , it prolly would n't be infected now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I was speaking of the fact that It has caught maybe two or three serious infections, and removed them successfully, but my mom's however is running terribly slow and she is restricted from command prompt, regedit, and changing the background from telling her that she needs to buy XPAntiVirus 2009.
I've removed the infections manually from hers, but if she'd just invest in a decent AV program, it prolly wouldn't be infected now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580085</id>
	<title>Re:Why should I buy</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246722300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny. I wonder the same about our government sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny .
I wonder the same about our government sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny.
I wonder the same about our government sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580843</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1246728900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can install SEP with Antivirus only, without the network threat protection bullshit and all the other bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can install SEP with Antivirus only , without the network threat protection bullshit and all the other bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can install SEP with Antivirus only, without the network threat protection bullshit and all the other bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580767</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1246728300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to admit that taking down the Windows network stack does mean your endpoints are indeed protected. At least the ones on your PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to admit that taking down the Windows network stack does mean your endpoints are indeed protected .
At least the ones on your PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to admit that taking down the Windows network stack does mean your endpoints are indeed protected.
At least the ones on your PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581175</id>
	<title>Regarding the Symantec news release</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246731540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm.  All news is like water.  Consider the source.  If you want real protection, use someone else's computer or a use daily re-image.  Otherwise keep a copy of your essential data offline including hard copies if possible and pray daily.</p><p>Signed,<br>Anonymous Coward</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm .
All news is like water .
Consider the source .
If you want real protection , use someone else 's computer or a use daily re-image .
Otherwise keep a copy of your essential data offline including hard copies if possible and pray daily.Signed,Anonymous Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm.
All news is like water.
Consider the source.
If you want real protection, use someone else's computer or a use daily re-image.
Otherwise keep a copy of your essential data offline including hard copies if possible and pray daily.Signed,Anonymous Coward</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580365</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246724820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This.  I run ClamWin purely for scanning purposes when downloading suspicious-looking files.  I haven't had a true virus in years (I have had a few trojans from corporate software install bundles, suck as the Ask Toolbar from installing Vuze).</p><p>Symantec is full of sh*t.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This .
I run ClamWin purely for scanning purposes when downloading suspicious-looking files .
I have n't had a true virus in years ( I have had a few trojans from corporate software install bundles , suck as the Ask Toolbar from installing Vuze ) .Symantec is full of sh * t .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.
I run ClamWin purely for scanning purposes when downloading suspicious-looking files.
I haven't had a true virus in years (I have had a few trojans from corporate software install bundles, suck as the Ask Toolbar from installing Vuze).Symantec is full of sh*t.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579835</id>
	<title>So what do I do then? Change OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. I really don't care to pay an antivirus tax on my computer.<br>2. All anti-virus software tends to suck. (If they all suck, may as well use a free one.)<br>3. I kind of like the Ubuntu flavor of Linux, but the only thing keeping me from switching over is my game and multimedia software. If everything would work and without a noticable performance hit, I'd have switched already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
I really do n't care to pay an antivirus tax on my computer.2 .
All anti-virus software tends to suck .
( If they all suck , may as well use a free one. ) 3 .
I kind of like the Ubuntu flavor of Linux , but the only thing keeping me from switching over is my game and multimedia software .
If everything would work and without a noticable performance hit , I 'd have switched already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
I really don't care to pay an antivirus tax on my computer.2.
All anti-virus software tends to suck.
(If they all suck, may as well use a free one.)3.
I kind of like the Ubuntu flavor of Linux, but the only thing keeping me from switching over is my game and multimedia software.
If everything would work and without a noticable performance hit, I'd have switched already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579821</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246719600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can explain that to you. It's called a delusional dominant reality.</p><p>If you act as if you were the godking of antivirus, you will start to ignore your flaws. If you then are so strong in that belief, that you pull others into it, they will start to ignore them too.<br>As you might imagine, this is quite easy with the uninformed masses, who never have seen anything else.<br>I mean that "Dr. Norton" with his white doctor coat, his cool name, and all this... He looks so sure of himself. And others have it too. So it must be good. Ever if it is bad there, and there, and there, and there, etc.</p><p>It's the same thing that makes you believe a medical doctor actually had any more competence than a better pharmacist. And him stating "there is no cure" except of "I did not go to a further training for the last three decades, and just don't know a cure, but there might be one, and we still have to find it", does not help it. (This is his delusional dominant reality in action.)</p><p>It is also the thing that can make you good at dating, pickup, etc. (Don't hear to the Mistery method losers and their a million and one imitators. That stuff is outdated for at least a decade now.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can explain that to you .
It 's called a delusional dominant reality.If you act as if you were the godking of antivirus , you will start to ignore your flaws .
If you then are so strong in that belief , that you pull others into it , they will start to ignore them too.As you might imagine , this is quite easy with the uninformed masses , who never have seen anything else.I mean that " Dr. Norton " with his white doctor coat , his cool name , and all this... He looks so sure of himself .
And others have it too .
So it must be good .
Ever if it is bad there , and there , and there , and there , etc.It 's the same thing that makes you believe a medical doctor actually had any more competence than a better pharmacist .
And him stating " there is no cure " except of " I did not go to a further training for the last three decades , and just do n't know a cure , but there might be one , and we still have to find it " , does not help it .
( This is his delusional dominant reality in action .
) It is also the thing that can make you good at dating , pickup , etc .
( Do n't hear to the Mistery method losers and their a million and one imitators .
That stuff is outdated for at least a decade now .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can explain that to you.
It's called a delusional dominant reality.If you act as if you were the godking of antivirus, you will start to ignore your flaws.
If you then are so strong in that belief, that you pull others into it, they will start to ignore them too.As you might imagine, this is quite easy with the uninformed masses, who never have seen anything else.I mean that "Dr. Norton" with his white doctor coat, his cool name, and all this... He looks so sure of himself.
And others have it too.
So it must be good.
Ever if it is bad there, and there, and there, and there, etc.It's the same thing that makes you believe a medical doctor actually had any more competence than a better pharmacist.
And him stating "there is no cure" except of "I did not go to a further training for the last three decades, and just don't know a cure, but there might be one, and we still have to find it", does not help it.
(This is his delusional dominant reality in action.
)It is also the thing that can make you good at dating, pickup, etc.
(Don't hear to the Mistery method losers and their a million and one imitators.
That stuff is outdated for at least a decade now.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579845</id>
	<title>ESET</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another vote for ESET. No vendor is perfect, but ESET has been pretty solid for me for several years.</p><p>You people running naked and smug on linux and apple are going to get a wakeup call sooner or later when someone exploits an adobe or java product and jacks your machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another vote for ESET .
No vendor is perfect , but ESET has been pretty solid for me for several years.You people running naked and smug on linux and apple are going to get a wakeup call sooner or later when someone exploits an adobe or java product and jacks your machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another vote for ESET.
No vendor is perfect, but ESET has been pretty solid for me for several years.You people running naked and smug on linux and apple are going to get a wakeup call sooner or later when someone exploits an adobe or java product and jacks your machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581101</id>
	<title>Why I hate bundled AV</title>
	<author>cpct0</author>
	<datestamp>1246730760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally am very vocal about my hate of purchased anti-viruses for end users.</p><p>Most of the home user computers I've seen use some kind of outdated anti-virus technology that wasn't updated in ages. They purchase the computer, they got a 90 days free AV deal, then weeks before it ends up, they are asked to subscribe to this crap for some kind of amount, they say "later", next reboot "later", next reboot "later", next reboot GAAAH "never! there!", and they are stuck with that piece of crap that slows down their computer than gives them a false impression of security "because they got Norton installed", even if they totally forgot they even had to subscribe.</p><p>Even worse are the computers with some outdated version of the software that isn't even updated anymore, like they got this 3 year old version of (example) Symantec they purchased, asked for the year update, then got a message about that brand new (shiny) version with more features. They said no because they aren't doing anything fancy with their computers. Now they are stuck with some 3 year old solution that isn't updated anymore. How appropriate.</p><p>So my suggestion for all the computer users: don't use a bundled anti-virus unless you get explained what's the deal pay their due diligence everytime they are asking for it. Then, they are very good (usually vastly superior) products. -- Instead, use some free anti-virus, like AVG, that will automatically update everyday, and won't become outdated, and you won't have a popup message asking for money or else... Use spybot for the lesser evils. There, you are free of pains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally am very vocal about my hate of purchased anti-viruses for end users.Most of the home user computers I 've seen use some kind of outdated anti-virus technology that was n't updated in ages .
They purchase the computer , they got a 90 days free AV deal , then weeks before it ends up , they are asked to subscribe to this crap for some kind of amount , they say " later " , next reboot " later " , next reboot " later " , next reboot GAAAH " never !
there ! " , and they are stuck with that piece of crap that slows down their computer than gives them a false impression of security " because they got Norton installed " , even if they totally forgot they even had to subscribe.Even worse are the computers with some outdated version of the software that is n't even updated anymore , like they got this 3 year old version of ( example ) Symantec they purchased , asked for the year update , then got a message about that brand new ( shiny ) version with more features .
They said no because they are n't doing anything fancy with their computers .
Now they are stuck with some 3 year old solution that is n't updated anymore .
How appropriate.So my suggestion for all the computer users : do n't use a bundled anti-virus unless you get explained what 's the deal pay their due diligence everytime they are asking for it .
Then , they are very good ( usually vastly superior ) products .
-- Instead , use some free anti-virus , like AVG , that will automatically update everyday , and wo n't become outdated , and you wo n't have a popup message asking for money or else... Use spybot for the lesser evils .
There , you are free of pains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally am very vocal about my hate of purchased anti-viruses for end users.Most of the home user computers I've seen use some kind of outdated anti-virus technology that wasn't updated in ages.
They purchase the computer, they got a 90 days free AV deal, then weeks before it ends up, they are asked to subscribe to this crap for some kind of amount, they say "later", next reboot "later", next reboot "later", next reboot GAAAH "never!
there!", and they are stuck with that piece of crap that slows down their computer than gives them a false impression of security "because they got Norton installed", even if they totally forgot they even had to subscribe.Even worse are the computers with some outdated version of the software that isn't even updated anymore, like they got this 3 year old version of (example) Symantec they purchased, asked for the year update, then got a message about that brand new (shiny) version with more features.
They said no because they aren't doing anything fancy with their computers.
Now they are stuck with some 3 year old solution that isn't updated anymore.
How appropriate.So my suggestion for all the computer users: don't use a bundled anti-virus unless you get explained what's the deal pay their due diligence everytime they are asking for it.
Then, they are very good (usually vastly superior) products.
-- Instead, use some free anti-virus, like AVG, that will automatically update everyday, and won't become outdated, and you won't have a popup message asking for money or else... Use spybot for the lesser evils.
There, you are free of pains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586775</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1246814520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There ones was a nice little tool, AtGuard it did what it was supposed to do with a lean user interface which did not get in the way, it had 5 MB. One day the atguard people said Symantec has bought them and it came out as Norton Whatever, the next version was 150 MB with a bloated UI from hell which was supposed to make things easier, but made it unusable, it bogged down the machine and deep hidden somewhere was still an option to reach the original ui. Needless to say, after that I never touched any Symantec software anymore. As for Norton Antivirus, I scrape it off from any machine where I can find it, it is simply the worst of almost all of them, not that the others are better but there are at least leaner alternatives which do not have the UI-ritis from hell!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There ones was a nice little tool , AtGuard it did what it was supposed to do with a lean user interface which did not get in the way , it had 5 MB .
One day the atguard people said Symantec has bought them and it came out as Norton Whatever , the next version was 150 MB with a bloated UI from hell which was supposed to make things easier , but made it unusable , it bogged down the machine and deep hidden somewhere was still an option to reach the original ui .
Needless to say , after that I never touched any Symantec software anymore .
As for Norton Antivirus , I scrape it off from any machine where I can find it , it is simply the worst of almost all of them , not that the others are better but there are at least leaner alternatives which do not have the UI-ritis from hell !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There ones was a nice little tool, AtGuard it did what it was supposed to do with a lean user interface which did not get in the way, it had 5 MB.
One day the atguard people said Symantec has bought them and it came out as Norton Whatever, the next version was 150 MB with a bloated UI from hell which was supposed to make things easier, but made it unusable, it bogged down the machine and deep hidden somewhere was still an option to reach the original ui.
Needless to say, after that I never touched any Symantec software anymore.
As for Norton Antivirus, I scrape it off from any machine where I can find it, it is simply the worst of almost all of them, not that the others are better but there are at least leaner alternatives which do not have the UI-ritis from hell!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581763</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246736280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he says as he closes 14 different autodialers and "warning virus detected by this software to remove it" dialogs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he says as he closes 14 different autodialers and " warning virus detected by this software to remove it " dialogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he says as he closes 14 different autodialers and "warning virus detected by this software to remove it" dialogs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581515</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246734060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If there were any high-quality for-pay alternatives, I'd say he might have a point</p></div><p>There are, but they are from smaller companies. I work for one, and here's what ours does that neither the big boys nor the free alternatives do. If you get something that can be detected but not automatically fixed by our antivirus engine (we license one of the best engines available) or our antispyware engine, a report is submitted to us with the details necessary to allow a human to figure out what is needed to fix your system. Within 24 hours (typically) a human in our AV research department will have examined that, and crafted a custom fix for your computer. That gets delivered to your computer and applied to fix your problem.</p><p>It's all about service. The service we sell is protecting you from viruses and spyware, and helping you recover from any that get past the scanner.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> From my experience, there's really bad antivirus software (such as Norton, which I have zero confidence in and would never let touch my machine), and slightly less bad antivirus software. What went wrong? Why does this industry suck so badly? Anyone have any insight?</p></div><p>What went wrong is that most of the providers view themselves as sellers of software and updates to the software, rather than as selling a service of helping people deal with viruses and spyware.</p><p>Since they are selling a box of software, the customer is supposed to install it and go away. Hence, ridiculous fees if the customer needs to actually call for help with a virus or even, with some companies, get help by email.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were any high-quality for-pay alternatives , I 'd say he might have a pointThere are , but they are from smaller companies .
I work for one , and here 's what ours does that neither the big boys nor the free alternatives do .
If you get something that can be detected but not automatically fixed by our antivirus engine ( we license one of the best engines available ) or our antispyware engine , a report is submitted to us with the details necessary to allow a human to figure out what is needed to fix your system .
Within 24 hours ( typically ) a human in our AV research department will have examined that , and crafted a custom fix for your computer .
That gets delivered to your computer and applied to fix your problem.It 's all about service .
The service we sell is protecting you from viruses and spyware , and helping you recover from any that get past the scanner .
From my experience , there 's really bad antivirus software ( such as Norton , which I have zero confidence in and would never let touch my machine ) , and slightly less bad antivirus software .
What went wrong ?
Why does this industry suck so badly ?
Anyone have any insight ? What went wrong is that most of the providers view themselves as sellers of software and updates to the software , rather than as selling a service of helping people deal with viruses and spyware.Since they are selling a box of software , the customer is supposed to install it and go away .
Hence , ridiculous fees if the customer needs to actually call for help with a virus or even , with some companies , get help by email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If there were any high-quality for-pay alternatives, I'd say he might have a pointThere are, but they are from smaller companies.
I work for one, and here's what ours does that neither the big boys nor the free alternatives do.
If you get something that can be detected but not automatically fixed by our antivirus engine (we license one of the best engines available) or our antispyware engine, a report is submitted to us with the details necessary to allow a human to figure out what is needed to fix your system.
Within 24 hours (typically) a human in our AV research department will have examined that, and crafted a custom fix for your computer.
That gets delivered to your computer and applied to fix your problem.It's all about service.
The service we sell is protecting you from viruses and spyware, and helping you recover from any that get past the scanner.
From my experience, there's really bad antivirus software (such as Norton, which I have zero confidence in and would never let touch my machine), and slightly less bad antivirus software.
What went wrong?
Why does this industry suck so badly?
Anyone have any insight?What went wrong is that most of the providers view themselves as sellers of software and updates to the software, rather than as selling a service of helping people deal with viruses and spyware.Since they are selling a box of software, the customer is supposed to install it and go away.
Hence, ridiculous fees if the customer needs to actually call for help with a virus or even, with some companies, get help by email.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28590895</id>
	<title>Re:Rock and hard place</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1246815180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

It starts with Frank, Frank is a manager in charge of software purchases and he is given the task of purchasing AV software. Frank has a mate called Bob who sells anti virus software. Bob gets a bonus whenever he sells some Symantec products, the higher volume the more Bob makes. Seeing as Bob is a salesman and Frank is a manager neither of them really care about the products actual performance, Frank helps out his mate by buying the product (so called "networking") and Bob gets a bonus for selling Symantec software.<br> <br>

The end result of this is that Mike, the sysadmin must buggerise around trying to fix bad AV software whilst Frank enjoys the nice bottle of wine sent to him by Bob which was paid for by the kickback he got from Symantec. Symantec sells to clueless PHB's, they found bribing resellers cheaper then developing a good product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business .
It starts with Frank , Frank is a manager in charge of software purchases and he is given the task of purchasing AV software .
Frank has a mate called Bob who sells anti virus software .
Bob gets a bonus whenever he sells some Symantec products , the higher volume the more Bob makes .
Seeing as Bob is a salesman and Frank is a manager neither of them really care about the products actual performance , Frank helps out his mate by buying the product ( so called " networking " ) and Bob gets a bonus for selling Symantec software .
The end result of this is that Mike , the sysadmin must buggerise around trying to fix bad AV software whilst Frank enjoys the nice bottle of wine sent to him by Bob which was paid for by the kickback he got from Symantec .
Symantec sells to clueless PHB 's , they found bribing resellers cheaper then developing a good product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business.
It starts with Frank, Frank is a manager in charge of software purchases and he is given the task of purchasing AV software.
Frank has a mate called Bob who sells anti virus software.
Bob gets a bonus whenever he sells some Symantec products, the higher volume the more Bob makes.
Seeing as Bob is a salesman and Frank is a manager neither of them really care about the products actual performance, Frank helps out his mate by buying the product (so called "networking") and Bob gets a bonus for selling Symantec software.
The end result of this is that Mike, the sysadmin must buggerise around trying to fix bad AV software whilst Frank enjoys the nice bottle of wine sent to him by Bob which was paid for by the kickback he got from Symantec.
Symantec sells to clueless PHB's, they found bribing resellers cheaper then developing a good product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115</id>
	<title>Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1246722540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A quick Google search shows Symantec products are not much different: <a href="http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2007/02/07/norton-from-symantec-problems-problems-problems/" title="lockergnome.com">Norton - From Symantec - Problems, Problems, Problems.</a> [lockergnome.com].

<br> <br>Or, <a href="http://www.symantec.com/connect/forums/multiple-serious-problems-symantec-endpoint-11-please-help" title="symantec.com">Multiple serious problems with symantec endpoint 11 - Please
help</a> [symantec.com].

<br> <br>Or, <a href="http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?message.uid=46532" title="norton.com">Norton Internet Security 2009 has caused me problems</a> [norton.com]. (Norton.com is <a href="http://shop.symantecstore.com/store/symnahho/DisplayHomePage/en\_US/ThemeID.106300?resid=VFXmmgoBAkcAACItfegAAAAd&amp;rests=1246718751189" title="symantecstore.com">owned by Symantec</a> [symantecstore.com], of course.)

<br> <br>You know there are problems when Symantec provides a <a href="http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?message.uid=46532" title="norton.com">Removal Tool</a> [norton.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick Google search shows Symantec products are not much different : Norton - From Symantec - Problems , Problems , Problems .
[ lockergnome.com ] . Or , Multiple serious problems with symantec endpoint 11 - Please help [ symantec.com ] .
Or , Norton Internet Security 2009 has caused me problems [ norton.com ] .
( Norton.com is owned by Symantec [ symantecstore.com ] , of course .
) You know there are problems when Symantec provides a Removal Tool [ norton.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick Google search shows Symantec products are not much different: Norton - From Symantec - Problems, Problems, Problems.
[lockergnome.com].

 Or, Multiple serious problems with symantec endpoint 11 - Please
help [symantec.com].
Or, Norton Internet Security 2009 has caused me problems [norton.com].
(Norton.com is owned by Symantec [symantecstore.com], of course.
)

 You know there are problems when Symantec provides a Removal Tool [norton.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582983</id>
	<title>The problem is Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246706940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not which brand of add-on bloat 'scanner' that you use with it, free or otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not which brand of add-on bloat 'scanner ' that you use with it , free or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not which brand of add-on bloat 'scanner' that you use with it, free or otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579779</id>
	<title>I'd rather believe someone independent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symantec seem to be scared, nothing more.  Irritatingly it's comments like this that seem to get picked up by the mainstream media and not the results of the independent tests that show Symantec's AV to be roughly as competant as some of these free ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec seem to be scared , nothing more .
Irritatingly it 's comments like this that seem to get picked up by the mainstream media and not the results of the independent tests that show Symantec 's AV to be roughly as competant as some of these free ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec seem to be scared, nothing more.
Irritatingly it's comments like this that seem to get picked up by the mainstream media and not the results of the independent tests that show Symantec's AV to be roughly as competant as some of these free ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579933</id>
	<title>Not QUITE right</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246720860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what is really a non-protection in AV? Products from large companies. No, really.</p><p>Malware is today routinely tested against the big players before it's leaving the door. More and more often, you also see protection against specific AV suits (Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky are amongst the top on that list), where the malware specifically tries to disable those AV suits or at least blocks updates.</p><p>Malware protecting against smaller players in the AV field is rare. Market dictates that. It does not pay to protect your malware against an AV suit the market share or which is less than 5 percent.</p><p>So, I essentially agree with him: MS Antivirus will offer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, let me say not the best protection, because EVERY piece of malware will be tested and hardened against it. But, and I guess Mr. Hall will not enjoy that, Symantec doesn't offer protection any better, because, since they're big enough with a big enough market share, they, too, are on the malware writer's radar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what is really a non-protection in AV ?
Products from large companies .
No , really.Malware is today routinely tested against the big players before it 's leaving the door .
More and more often , you also see protection against specific AV suits ( Norton , McAfee , Kaspersky are amongst the top on that list ) , where the malware specifically tries to disable those AV suits or at least blocks updates.Malware protecting against smaller players in the AV field is rare .
Market dictates that .
It does not pay to protect your malware against an AV suit the market share or which is less than 5 percent.So , I essentially agree with him : MS Antivirus will offer ... well , let me say not the best protection , because EVERY piece of malware will be tested and hardened against it .
But , and I guess Mr. Hall will not enjoy that , Symantec does n't offer protection any better , because , since they 're big enough with a big enough market share , they , too , are on the malware writer 's radar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what is really a non-protection in AV?
Products from large companies.
No, really.Malware is today routinely tested against the big players before it's leaving the door.
More and more often, you also see protection against specific AV suits (Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky are amongst the top on that list), where the malware specifically tries to disable those AV suits or at least blocks updates.Malware protecting against smaller players in the AV field is rare.
Market dictates that.
It does not pay to protect your malware against an AV suit the market share or which is less than 5 percent.So, I essentially agree with him: MS Antivirus will offer ... well, let me say not the best protection, because EVERY piece of malware will be tested and hardened against it.
But, and I guess Mr. Hall will not enjoy that, Symantec doesn't offer protection any better, because, since they're big enough with a big enough market share, they, too, are on the malware writer's radar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584511</id>
	<title>bla bla bla</title>
	<author>segagman</author>
	<datestamp>1246729860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i use in this order. Antivir,Mbam and Avg. I fix puters daily with norton on them so in my opinion this guy is full of bs. first smart computing vs grandma dumb computing is the real fault for viruses. if i down load a virus its a false positive because it a keygenartor of something of that ilk.
also who can believe a guy who it is in his interest to say such things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i use in this order .
Antivir,Mbam and Avg .
I fix puters daily with norton on them so in my opinion this guy is full of bs .
first smart computing vs grandma dumb computing is the real fault for viruses .
if i down load a virus its a false positive because it a keygenartor of something of that ilk .
also who can believe a guy who it is in his interest to say such things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i use in this order.
Antivir,Mbam and Avg.
I fix puters daily with norton on them so in my opinion this guy is full of bs.
first smart computing vs grandma dumb computing is the real fault for viruses.
if i down load a virus its a false positive because it a keygenartor of something of that ilk.
also who can believe a guy who it is in his interest to say such things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580069</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>lytithwyn</author>
	<datestamp>1246722120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've found that free anti-virus, like Avira and Avast, pretty good</p></div><p>I can second this whole-heartedly.  I work in a computer shop, and I can personally testify that these two products catch more infections than anything
Symantec, McAffee, or Trend Micro EVER came out with.  I still recommend <a href="http://www.malwarebytes.org/" title="malwarebytes.org" rel="nofollow">Malwarebytes Antimalware</a> [malwarebytes.org] as a
supplementary spyware scanner, but Avast and Avira are definitely my favorite for main protection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found that free anti-virus , like Avira and Avast , pretty goodI can second this whole-heartedly .
I work in a computer shop , and I can personally testify that these two products catch more infections than anything Symantec , McAffee , or Trend Micro EVER came out with .
I still recommend Malwarebytes Antimalware [ malwarebytes.org ] as a supplementary spyware scanner , but Avast and Avira are definitely my favorite for main protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found that free anti-virus, like Avira and Avast, pretty goodI can second this whole-heartedly.
I work in a computer shop, and I can personally testify that these two products catch more infections than anything
Symantec, McAffee, or Trend Micro EVER came out with.
I still recommend Malwarebytes Antimalware [malwarebytes.org] as a
supplementary spyware scanner, but Avast and Avira are definitely my favorite for main protection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580215</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246723440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here we have a slashdotter telling us that now there are ads on internet. Da? Insightful? Obvious +5 for parent and Ad Propaganda tag for the "article".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here we have a slashdotter telling us that now there are ads on internet .
Da ? Insightful ?
Obvious + 5 for parent and Ad Propaganda tag for the " article " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here we have a slashdotter telling us that now there are ads on internet.
Da? Insightful?
Obvious +5 for parent and Ad Propaganda tag for the "article".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581219</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246731900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because no company in the anti-virus field has an motivation to ever solve the virus problems permanently via effective, workable heuristic solutions. They're in business to make money, which means they will ALWAYS sell a flawed product so they can sell you a) subscriptions and b) next years release.</p><p>Anti-virus, much like insurance, is a fucking racket: you need their services, but the more effectively they provide their services the less money they make off you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because no company in the anti-virus field has an motivation to ever solve the virus problems permanently via effective , workable heuristic solutions .
They 're in business to make money , which means they will ALWAYS sell a flawed product so they can sell you a ) subscriptions and b ) next years release.Anti-virus , much like insurance , is a fucking racket : you need their services , but the more effectively they provide their services the less money they make off you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because no company in the anti-virus field has an motivation to ever solve the virus problems permanently via effective, workable heuristic solutions.
They're in business to make money, which means they will ALWAYS sell a flawed product so they can sell you a) subscriptions and b) next years release.Anti-virus, much like insurance, is a fucking racket: you need their services, but the more effectively they provide their services the less money they make off you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580135</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246722660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Symantec might be good for the peons, but for experts the performance hit is too much. Expert users can find better, cheaper, and faster working solutions.</i> </p><p>Given that the peons outnumber the experts by about a million to one, Symantec's future seems secure.</p><p>Did I mention that the geek sucks big-time when he tries to sell an idea or a product to the "huddled masses yearning to be free?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symantec might be good for the peons , but for experts the performance hit is too much .
Expert users can find better , cheaper , and faster working solutions .
Given that the peons outnumber the experts by about a million to one , Symantec 's future seems secure.Did I mention that the geek sucks big-time when he tries to sell an idea or a product to the " huddled masses yearning to be free ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symantec might be good for the peons, but for experts the performance hit is too much.
Expert users can find better, cheaper, and faster working solutions.
Given that the peons outnumber the experts by about a million to one, Symantec's future seems secure.Did I mention that the geek sucks big-time when he tries to sell an idea or a product to the "huddled masses yearning to be free?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582143</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than Norton</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1246740720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you need a second signature on that letter, count me in!</p><p>Symantec products are categorically AWFUL!</p><p>My workplace paid a bunch of money for an enterprise license for the Ghost software, which was once a pretty good product.  But Symantec has "updated" the thing over the years with nothing but half-baked, flaky "corporate features".  About the only things you can count on Ghost doing right are the basic imaging tasks you could do with the product long before Symanec acquired it!</p><p>I've *never* gotten the thing to reliably image PCs over a network on a schedule.  It inevitably images SOME of the machines, and not others - and occasionally "hiccups", deciding to image some systems at times not even on the schedule, and interrupting people's use of their computer until I shut the thing down and fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need a second signature on that letter , count me in ! Symantec products are categorically AWFUL ! My workplace paid a bunch of money for an enterprise license for the Ghost software , which was once a pretty good product .
But Symantec has " updated " the thing over the years with nothing but half-baked , flaky " corporate features " .
About the only things you can count on Ghost doing right are the basic imaging tasks you could do with the product long before Symanec acquired it ! I 've * never * gotten the thing to reliably image PCs over a network on a schedule .
It inevitably images SOME of the machines , and not others - and occasionally " hiccups " , deciding to image some systems at times not even on the schedule , and interrupting people 's use of their computer until I shut the thing down and fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need a second signature on that letter, count me in!Symantec products are categorically AWFUL!My workplace paid a bunch of money for an enterprise license for the Ghost software, which was once a pretty good product.
But Symantec has "updated" the thing over the years with nothing but half-baked, flaky "corporate features".
About the only things you can count on Ghost doing right are the basic imaging tasks you could do with the product long before Symanec acquired it!I've *never* gotten the thing to reliably image PCs over a network on a schedule.
It inevitably images SOME of the machines, and not others - and occasionally "hiccups", deciding to image some systems at times not even on the schedule, and interrupting people's use of their computer until I shut the thing down and fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799</id>
	<title>Re:Be Afraid! Buy Our Product!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree.  How many computer users are able to make an accurate judgement between two pieces of antivirus software?  When you decide to choose one AV program over another, what metrics do you use?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
How many computer users are able to make an accurate judgement between two pieces of antivirus software ?
When you decide to choose one AV program over another , what metrics do you use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
How many computer users are able to make an accurate judgement between two pieces of antivirus software?
When you decide to choose one AV program over another, what metrics do you use?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580565</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1246726560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't just about someone saying we need their product.  It would be like McDonald's saying they're better than their competition, if you haven't noticed, McDonald's doesn't actually say that.  The problem here is that one of the worst AV offenders is telling us that they are better than the others.  To claim they have high quality, they should at least have some positive qualities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't just about someone saying we need their product .
It would be like McDonald 's saying they 're better than their competition , if you have n't noticed , McDonald 's does n't actually say that .
The problem here is that one of the worst AV offenders is telling us that they are better than the others .
To claim they have high quality , they should at least have some positive qualities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't just about someone saying we need their product.
It would be like McDonald's saying they're better than their competition, if you haven't noticed, McDonald's doesn't actually say that.
The problem here is that one of the worst AV offenders is telling us that they are better than the others.
To claim they have high quality, they should at least have some positive qualities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580067</id>
	<title>Sometimes Free works great!</title>
	<author>scarolan</author>
	<datestamp>1246722060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently replaced the Sophos virus scanner software with ClamAV on a fairly busy 4-node virus scanning cluster.  The performance is better, and I no longer have to beg the finance department every year to cut a check for new licenses.  A win-win situation all around.  Well, except maybe for Sophos...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently replaced the Sophos virus scanner software with ClamAV on a fairly busy 4-node virus scanning cluster .
The performance is better , and I no longer have to beg the finance department every year to cut a check for new licenses .
A win-win situation all around .
Well , except maybe for Sophos.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently replaced the Sophos virus scanner software with ClamAV on a fairly busy 4-node virus scanning cluster.
The performance is better, and I no longer have to beg the finance department every year to cut a check for new licenses.
A win-win situation all around.
Well, except maybe for Sophos...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579807</id>
	<title>His speech is worthless..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He doesn't provide any references or even made up numbers. As far as I know, his speech is completely worthless.</p><p>The most effective antivirus is common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He does n't provide any references or even made up numbers .
As far as I know , his speech is completely worthless.The most effective antivirus is common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He doesn't provide any references or even made up numbers.
As far as I know, his speech is completely worthless.The most effective antivirus is common sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583043</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1246707840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run a small PC repair business. Symantec is great for business - it can stuff up computers big time... I put free Avast Home on my customers computers. Doesn't glug down the PC like Symantec's stuff does and far more reliable as an anti-virus agent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a small PC repair business .
Symantec is great for business - it can stuff up computers big time... I put free Avast Home on my customers computers .
Does n't glug down the PC like Symantec 's stuff does and far more reliable as an anti-virus agent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a small PC repair business.
Symantec is great for business - it can stuff up computers big time... I put free Avast Home on my customers computers.
Doesn't glug down the PC like Symantec's stuff does and far more reliable as an anti-virus agent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582063</id>
	<title>Heil Symantec</title>
	<author>thunderclap</author>
	<datestamp>1246740060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its sounds like Consumers dont need less protection, they need more was stolen from a presidential speech. Politics aside I let an antivirus on that a: can prove it can do its job. B: have a small footprint (avast has 6 programs in residence. They take less than 20\% of total CPU cycles) c: will auto update without me having to do it manually.
Mcaffee has never passed this.
Norton did until WinXP.
I regularly have people remove either and replace them with something else ESET, AVG, avast. I use avast because: it auto updates daily. It blocks drive bys, its scans downloads, it blocks malicious website connections. And it has never failed to help kill an actual virus. (i get one per OS). I saw a recent version of Symantec on a friends computer who was complaining it has slowed down in the 3 months since he bought it and installed it. So after a Hijaack this run, I killed off symnatec, gutted all of it and its bloated 10 programs eating 50\%, and installed Avast. No viruses on the system at all. It was symantec that slowed it down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its sounds like Consumers dont need less protection , they need more was stolen from a presidential speech .
Politics aside I let an antivirus on that a : can prove it can do its job .
B : have a small footprint ( avast has 6 programs in residence .
They take less than 20 \ % of total CPU cycles ) c : will auto update without me having to do it manually .
Mcaffee has never passed this .
Norton did until WinXP .
I regularly have people remove either and replace them with something else ESET , AVG , avast .
I use avast because : it auto updates daily .
It blocks drive bys , its scans downloads , it blocks malicious website connections .
And it has never failed to help kill an actual virus .
( i get one per OS ) .
I saw a recent version of Symantec on a friends computer who was complaining it has slowed down in the 3 months since he bought it and installed it .
So after a Hijaack this run , I killed off symnatec , gutted all of it and its bloated 10 programs eating 50 \ % , and installed Avast .
No viruses on the system at all .
It was symantec that slowed it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its sounds like Consumers dont need less protection, they need more was stolen from a presidential speech.
Politics aside I let an antivirus on that a: can prove it can do its job.
B: have a small footprint (avast has 6 programs in residence.
They take less than 20\% of total CPU cycles) c: will auto update without me having to do it manually.
Mcaffee has never passed this.
Norton did until WinXP.
I regularly have people remove either and replace them with something else ESET, AVG, avast.
I use avast because: it auto updates daily.
It blocks drive bys, its scans downloads, it blocks malicious website connections.
And it has never failed to help kill an actual virus.
(i get one per OS).
I saw a recent version of Symantec on a friends computer who was complaining it has slowed down in the 3 months since he bought it and installed it.
So after a Hijaack this run, I killed off symnatec, gutted all of it and its bloated 10 programs eating 50\%, and installed Avast.
No viruses on the system at all.
It was symantec that slowed it down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581917</id>
	<title>Not impressed</title>
	<author>jnork</author>
	<datestamp>1246738080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I installed Symantec (work system, not my idea, and very much protested) it slowed my system down significantly. 2.8GHz dual-core system running XP was noticeably slower, especially running the core application, which was an assembler (sort of like a compiler but for assembly language -- and generally very fast and much simpler than a compiler). It easily took 10 times as long.</p><p>So whenever I hear somebody from Symantec whining self-serving marketing drek like this my only reaction is to reply with certain Anglo-Saxon expletives and related gestures.</p><p>Er zol vaksen vi a tsibeleh, mit dem kop in drerd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I installed Symantec ( work system , not my idea , and very much protested ) it slowed my system down significantly .
2.8GHz dual-core system running XP was noticeably slower , especially running the core application , which was an assembler ( sort of like a compiler but for assembly language -- and generally very fast and much simpler than a compiler ) .
It easily took 10 times as long.So whenever I hear somebody from Symantec whining self-serving marketing drek like this my only reaction is to reply with certain Anglo-Saxon expletives and related gestures.Er zol vaksen vi a tsibeleh , mit dem kop in drerd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I installed Symantec (work system, not my idea, and very much protested) it slowed my system down significantly.
2.8GHz dual-core system running XP was noticeably slower, especially running the core application, which was an assembler (sort of like a compiler but for assembly language -- and generally very fast and much simpler than a compiler).
It easily took 10 times as long.So whenever I hear somebody from Symantec whining self-serving marketing drek like this my only reaction is to reply with certain Anglo-Saxon expletives and related gestures.Er zol vaksen vi a tsibeleh, mit dem kop in drerd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580997</id>
	<title>What I Like About Norton...</title>
	<author>tunapez</author>
	<datestamp>1246730100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the warm fuzzy feeling I get when it runs a scan and says at the end, "No immediate threats found". I am left with a feeling of satisfaction knowing the annoyingly persistent pop-up WinAntiVirus is wrong and my computer really is clean. Nevermind the win system files Nort didn't check b/c access was denied, that's just micro-details that doesn't concern the end user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the warm fuzzy feeling I get when it runs a scan and says at the end , " No immediate threats found " .
I am left with a feeling of satisfaction knowing the annoyingly persistent pop-up WinAntiVirus is wrong and my computer really is clean .
Nevermind the win system files Nort did n't check b/c access was denied , that 's just micro-details that does n't concern the end user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the warm fuzzy feeling I get when it runs a scan and says at the end, "No immediate threats found".
I am left with a feeling of satisfaction knowing the annoyingly persistent pop-up WinAntiVirus is wrong and my computer really is clean.
Nevermind the win system files Nort didn't check b/c access was denied, that's just micro-details that doesn't concern the end user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579951</id>
	<title>avg</title>
	<author>seeksoft</author>
	<datestamp>1246721100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer AVG. I've been using it now for awhile, and I have most of my family + friends on it. When people ask me what to use, I recommend it. Doesn't bloat my system and it actually finds threats.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer AVG .
I 've been using it now for awhile , and I have most of my family + friends on it .
When people ask me what to use , I recommend it .
Does n't bloat my system and it actually finds threats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer AVG.
I've been using it now for awhile, and I have most of my family + friends on it.
When people ask me what to use, I recommend it.
Doesn't bloat my system and it actually finds threats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579671</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1246718160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft warns against free operating systems.  "They're so inferior! Look at ours, it runs the London Stock Exchange...oh wait."</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft warns against free operating systems .
" They 're so inferior !
Look at ours , it runs the London Stock Exchange...oh wait .
" --BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft warns against free operating systems.
"They're so inferior!
Look at ours, it runs the London Stock Exchange...oh wait.
"--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579897</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246720380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, they want us to believe that to be fully protected, we need to shell out some money.</p><p>I have Avast! Anti-virus, Spybot s&amp;d, and Zonealarm firewall.  I think I am pretty well safeguarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , they want us to believe that to be fully protected , we need to shell out some money.I have Avast !
Anti-virus , Spybot s&amp;d , and Zonealarm firewall .
I think I am pretty well safeguarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, they want us to believe that to be fully protected, we need to shell out some money.I have Avast!
Anti-virus, Spybot s&amp;d, and Zonealarm firewall.
I think I am pretty well safeguarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580177</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwid</title>
	<author>cyssero</author>
	<datestamp>1246723080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that explains why a significant amount of machines at work suspiciously fall apart this week. We had Windows core-files like uxtheme.dll go missing and a range of other BSODs.

I actually have more faith in the upcoming Microsoft Security Essentials than I do with VSE at this point in time. It will surely be easier to administer across the domain than VSE is now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that explains why a significant amount of machines at work suspiciously fall apart this week .
We had Windows core-files like uxtheme.dll go missing and a range of other BSODs .
I actually have more faith in the upcoming Microsoft Security Essentials than I do with VSE at this point in time .
It will surely be easier to administer across the domain than VSE is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that explains why a significant amount of machines at work suspiciously fall apart this week.
We had Windows core-files like uxtheme.dll go missing and a range of other BSODs.
I actually have more faith in the upcoming Microsoft Security Essentials than I do with VSE at this point in time.
It will surely be easier to administer across the domain than VSE is now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586913</id>
	<title>Antivirus software SHOULD be free</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1246816080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a proprietary operating system is susceptible to malicious software the company producing it should, for free of charge, provide measures to protect the customer.  Failure to do so is proof to the consumer the company producing the operating system has no respect for its customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a proprietary operating system is susceptible to malicious software the company producing it should , for free of charge , provide measures to protect the customer .
Failure to do so is proof to the consumer the company producing the operating system has no respect for its customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a proprietary operating system is susceptible to malicious software the company producing it should, for free of charge, provide measures to protect the customer.
Failure to do so is proof to the consumer the company producing the operating system has no respect for its customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580243</id>
	<title>Symantec 0 - AVG 1</title>
	<author>khrath</author>
	<datestamp>1246723620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's funny because at work the corporate big boys force Symantec on us, and I got infected with a virus once because it wouldn't even detect the virus. I installed AVG, which promptly detected and cleaned the virus. Good thing I wasn't depending on some free anti virus huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny because at work the corporate big boys force Symantec on us , and I got infected with a virus once because it would n't even detect the virus .
I installed AVG , which promptly detected and cleaned the virus .
Good thing I was n't depending on some free anti virus huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny because at work the corporate big boys force Symantec on us, and I got infected with a virus once because it wouldn't even detect the virus.
I installed AVG, which promptly detected and cleaned the virus.
Good thing I wasn't depending on some free anti virus huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579813</id>
	<title>If McAfee could protect us</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1246719480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>against poor design then they would not exist. I suppose that the gross profit of all the anti-virus companies combined are a quick glance at what a poorly designed operating system costs it's users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>against poor design then they would not exist .
I suppose that the gross profit of all the anti-virus companies combined are a quick glance at what a poorly designed operating system costs it 's users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>against poor design then they would not exist.
I suppose that the gross profit of all the anti-virus companies combined are a quick glance at what a poorly designed operating system costs it's users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580743</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246728060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sounds pretty naive. yes IE makes people get infected often, but if everyone were to use firefow, or opera, or chrome, doesn't matter, all malware writers will focus on the most popular browser. of course getting people off IE helps, but if everyone did it, the then most popular browser would be the target, all you're doing is sacrificing 80\% of the users to make it a bit safer for the other 20\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds pretty naive .
yes IE makes people get infected often , but if everyone were to use firefow , or opera , or chrome , does n't matter , all malware writers will focus on the most popular browser .
of course getting people off IE helps , but if everyone did it , the then most popular browser would be the target , all you 're doing is sacrificing 80 \ % of the users to make it a bit safer for the other 20 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds pretty naive.
yes IE makes people get infected often, but if everyone were to use firefow, or opera, or chrome, doesn't matter, all malware writers will focus on the most popular browser.
of course getting people off IE helps, but if everyone did it, the then most popular browser would be the target, all you're doing is sacrificing 80\% of the users to make it a bit safer for the other 20\%</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579695</id>
	<title>Why should I buy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246718340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should I buy something that locks me down in my own system. It's safe alright, but so is pulling the plug on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should I buy something that locks me down in my own system .
It 's safe alright , but so is pulling the plug on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should I buy something that locks me down in my own system.
It's safe alright, but so is pulling the plug on the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579839</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for technical support for a telephone company ISP. One of my trouble shooting steps (of course when the modem is up and signal good) is to uninstall Norton if system restore does not work. That often fixes the problem. I'm sure there is a use for it out there, but why would you allow a simple home user to disable their internet connection and NOT be able to enable it without uninstalling the program?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for technical support for a telephone company ISP .
One of my trouble shooting steps ( of course when the modem is up and signal good ) is to uninstall Norton if system restore does not work .
That often fixes the problem .
I 'm sure there is a use for it out there , but why would you allow a simple home user to disable their internet connection and NOT be able to enable it without uninstalling the program ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for technical support for a telephone company ISP.
One of my trouble shooting steps (of course when the modem is up and signal good) is to uninstall Norton if system restore does not work.
That often fixes the problem.
I'm sure there is a use for it out there, but why would you allow a simple home user to disable their internet connection and NOT be able to enable it without uninstalling the program?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579681</id>
	<title>Be Afraid! Buy Our Product!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246718220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Symantec's "security" security programs were worth a damn, the "free" products wouldn't stand a chance. So far, that hasn't been the case eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Symantec 's " security " security programs were worth a damn , the " free " products would n't stand a chance .
So far , that has n't been the case eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Symantec's "security" security programs were worth a damn, the "free" products wouldn't stand a chance.
So far, that hasn't been the case eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579721</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>achowe</author>
	<datestamp>1246718580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a software author, I've found that free anti-virus, like Avira and Avast, pretty good, given my
understanding of computers, email, spam, and security threats. Symantec are just creating
FUD. I used to use Norton Security software, but found that it just slows down a Windows XP
machine far too much, guesstimate 15 to 20\%. The UI would take ages to load.  Symantec
might be good for the peons, but for experts the performance hit is too much. Expert users
can find better, cheaper, and faster working solutions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a software author , I 've found that free anti-virus , like Avira and Avast , pretty good , given my understanding of computers , email , spam , and security threats .
Symantec are just creating FUD .
I used to use Norton Security software , but found that it just slows down a Windows XP machine far too much , guesstimate 15 to 20 \ % .
The UI would take ages to load .
Symantec might be good for the peons , but for experts the performance hit is too much .
Expert users can find better , cheaper , and faster working solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a software author, I've found that free anti-virus, like Avira and Avast, pretty good, given my
understanding of computers, email, spam, and security threats.
Symantec are just creating
FUD.
I used to use Norton Security software, but found that it just slows down a Windows XP
machine far too much, guesstimate 15 to 20\%.
The UI would take ages to load.
Symantec
might be good for the peons, but for experts the performance hit is too much.
Expert users
can find better, cheaper, and faster working solutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580379</id>
	<title>Re:Predictable much?</title>
	<author>Arith</author>
	<datestamp>1246724940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most kids who play Ubisoft games have horrible skin rashes and are nutless ANYWAY.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most kids who play Ubisoft games have horrible skin rashes and are nutless ANYWAY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most kids who play Ubisoft games have horrible skin rashes and are nutless ANYWAY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580287</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1246723980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>but that's what he goes on to explain later.  He says: "What you need is a pre-emptive strike.  Fight fire with fire!  Install one of our products and we'll break your computer until it's in an unusuable state.  I'd like to see you catch a virus when your internet doesn't work and your computer takes 10 minutes to boot."</htmltext>
<tokenext>but that 's what he goes on to explain later .
He says : " What you need is a pre-emptive strike .
Fight fire with fire !
Install one of our products and we 'll break your computer until it 's in an unusuable state .
I 'd like to see you catch a virus when your internet does n't work and your computer takes 10 minutes to boot .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but that's what he goes on to explain later.
He says: "What you need is a pre-emptive strike.
Fight fire with fire!
Install one of our products and we'll break your computer until it's in an unusuable state.
I'd like to see you catch a virus when your internet doesn't work and your computer takes 10 minutes to boot.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586129</id>
	<title>Paid vs. Open Source</title>
	<author>stanjam</author>
	<datestamp>1246805820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I have seen paid for anti-virus that is VERY effective.  Some of the good ones find most of the viruses and malware, and don't take up too many resources.  I have also seen paid anti-virus software that sucks, finds little and clogs your system.  On the free end, I have seen some excellent programs, and many that do either nothing, or worse, actually harm your system.

Norton is taking this tack because this is the tack that everyone takes when free software gets to the point that you start losing money.  They attack, and they lie. WHat they SHOULD be doing is offering features no one else has, and being innovative. I mean, I wouldn't trust Microsoft's anti-malware products either, but there certainly ARE free products I would trust!

For the average user, I still recommend paid anti-virus. Heck, I still use the paid version of Zone Alarm on my Windows machines, and I have their secure router. For more knowledgeable, or advanced users that insist on running Windows, there are a number of free programs out there I recommend to them. Heck, I know people that don't even use anti-virus. They never get viruses, but they are also careful what they do online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I have seen paid for anti-virus that is VERY effective .
Some of the good ones find most of the viruses and malware , and do n't take up too many resources .
I have also seen paid anti-virus software that sucks , finds little and clogs your system .
On the free end , I have seen some excellent programs , and many that do either nothing , or worse , actually harm your system .
Norton is taking this tack because this is the tack that everyone takes when free software gets to the point that you start losing money .
They attack , and they lie .
WHat they SHOULD be doing is offering features no one else has , and being innovative .
I mean , I would n't trust Microsoft 's anti-malware products either , but there certainly ARE free products I would trust !
For the average user , I still recommend paid anti-virus .
Heck , I still use the paid version of Zone Alarm on my Windows machines , and I have their secure router .
For more knowledgeable , or advanced users that insist on running Windows , there are a number of free programs out there I recommend to them .
Heck , I know people that do n't even use anti-virus .
They never get viruses , but they are also careful what they do online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I have seen paid for anti-virus that is VERY effective.
Some of the good ones find most of the viruses and malware, and don't take up too many resources.
I have also seen paid anti-virus software that sucks, finds little and clogs your system.
On the free end, I have seen some excellent programs, and many that do either nothing, or worse, actually harm your system.
Norton is taking this tack because this is the tack that everyone takes when free software gets to the point that you start losing money.
They attack, and they lie.
WHat they SHOULD be doing is offering features no one else has, and being innovative.
I mean, I wouldn't trust Microsoft's anti-malware products either, but there certainly ARE free products I would trust!
For the average user, I still recommend paid anti-virus.
Heck, I still use the paid version of Zone Alarm on my Windows machines, and I have their secure router.
For more knowledgeable, or advanced users that insist on running Windows, there are a number of free programs out there I recommend to them.
Heck, I know people that don't even use anti-virus.
They never get viruses, but they are also careful what they do online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581105</id>
	<title>Troll crying wolf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246730820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad Hall got it all wrong. The way I see it, the three primary reasons anti-malware programs are needed:</p><p>1. Stupidity. For every smartass there are 999 fucktards that routinely click, download, and execute malware payloads disguised as Word documents and JPG pictures. These fucktards also have no idea why their systems are overheating and failing because of excessive dust buildup.</p><p>2. Windows. Worldwide market dominance guarantees a virtually unlimited supply of fucktards.</p><p>3. Internet Explorer. IE + ActiveX always enabled and running = malware jackpot.</p><p>There really is only one way to secure a computer from malware - do not connect to a network, do not get exposed to the internet. The next best way is to run Linux. Failing that, use OS X instead of Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad Hall got it all wrong .
The way I see it , the three primary reasons anti-malware programs are needed : 1 .
Stupidity. For every smartass there are 999 fucktards that routinely click , download , and execute malware payloads disguised as Word documents and JPG pictures .
These fucktards also have no idea why their systems are overheating and failing because of excessive dust buildup.2 .
Windows. Worldwide market dominance guarantees a virtually unlimited supply of fucktards.3 .
Internet Explorer .
IE + ActiveX always enabled and running = malware jackpot.There really is only one way to secure a computer from malware - do not connect to a network , do not get exposed to the internet .
The next best way is to run Linux .
Failing that , use OS X instead of Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad Hall got it all wrong.
The way I see it, the three primary reasons anti-malware programs are needed:1.
Stupidity. For every smartass there are 999 fucktards that routinely click, download, and execute malware payloads disguised as Word documents and JPG pictures.
These fucktards also have no idea why their systems are overheating and failing because of excessive dust buildup.2.
Windows. Worldwide market dominance guarantees a virtually unlimited supply of fucktards.3.
Internet Explorer.
IE + ActiveX always enabled and running = malware jackpot.There really is only one way to secure a computer from malware - do not connect to a network, do not get exposed to the internet.
The next best way is to run Linux.
Failing that, use OS X instead of Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580683</id>
	<title>Re:Symantec is saying this?</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1246727520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it is better than older versions but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... <b>you're doing it wrong</b></p><p>download and run this - <a href="http://secunia.com/vulnerability\_scanning/personal/" title="secunia.com">http://secunia.com/vulnerability\_scanning/personal/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>It will tell you what programs you need to update. It will tell you every 1 to 3 days that you have a problem with Word, Excel, IE, Flash, Adobe Acrobat, etc, etc and really need to download the update from which ever companies website. It's made me decide to switch to Linux just out of shear annoyance... It's really funny how the update programs that litter my process list don't tell me this information for at least 1 to 4 weeks as I'd really like to know sooner... Can a brother get a damn RSS feed or something?</p><p>More than likely all of the above apply; Your mom is using IE, has an old version of Flash, Java, and Shockwave installed or has malware installed that is not detected yet. If you or your mom like the War3z then you more than likely have something not detected. A lot of stuff doesn't get added for a long long time when it doesn't break anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it is better than older versions but .... you 're doing it wrongdownload and run this - http : //secunia.com/vulnerability \ _scanning/personal/ [ secunia.com ] It will tell you what programs you need to update .
It will tell you every 1 to 3 days that you have a problem with Word , Excel , IE , Flash , Adobe Acrobat , etc , etc and really need to download the update from which ever companies website .
It 's made me decide to switch to Linux just out of shear annoyance... It 's really funny how the update programs that litter my process list do n't tell me this information for at least 1 to 4 weeks as I 'd really like to know sooner... Can a brother get a damn RSS feed or something ? More than likely all of the above apply ; Your mom is using IE , has an old version of Flash , Java , and Shockwave installed or has malware installed that is not detected yet .
If you or your mom like the War3z then you more than likely have something not detected .
A lot of stuff does n't get added for a long long time when it does n't break anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it is better than older versions but .... you're doing it wrongdownload and run this - http://secunia.com/vulnerability\_scanning/personal/ [secunia.com]It will tell you what programs you need to update.
It will tell you every 1 to 3 days that you have a problem with Word, Excel, IE, Flash, Adobe Acrobat, etc, etc and really need to download the update from which ever companies website.
It's made me decide to switch to Linux just out of shear annoyance... It's really funny how the update programs that litter my process list don't tell me this information for at least 1 to 4 weeks as I'd really like to know sooner... Can a brother get a damn RSS feed or something?More than likely all of the above apply; Your mom is using IE, has an old version of Flash, Java, and Shockwave installed or has malware installed that is not detected yet.
If you or your mom like the War3z then you more than likely have something not detected.
A lot of stuff doesn't get added for a long long time when it doesn't break anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580013</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than Norton</title>
	<author>OnE\_HoT\_It\_BiTcH</author>
	<datestamp>1246721640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm hardly a fanboy of Norton but they seam to have turned things around with their latest 2009 product. I will say that I hated 2006.. but then again I hated Windows ME and Vista.. it doesnt mean I'm going to stop using windows though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hardly a fanboy of Norton but they seam to have turned things around with their latest 2009 product .
I will say that I hated 2006.. but then again I hated Windows ME and Vista.. it doesnt mean I 'm going to stop using windows though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hardly a fanboy of Norton but they seam to have turned things around with their latest 2009 product.
I will say that I hated 2006.. but then again I hated Windows ME and Vista.. it doesnt mean I'm going to stop using windows though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28598975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28599171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28590547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28594143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28591847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28587787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28609431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28660237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28590895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1121255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28590547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583319
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28660237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28591847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579877
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28609431
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581763
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581327
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28599171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28598975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28594143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28590895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28587787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28584497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580421
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580843
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28585525
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580767
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582461
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28582103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28583043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28586143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28580511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1121255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28579953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1121255.28581967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
