<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_16_189243</id>
	<title>Sneaky Microsoft Add-On Put Firefox Users At Risk</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1255680840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes to mention that the "Windows Presentation Foundation" plugin that Microsoft slipped into Firefox last February apparently <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139459/Sneaky\_Microsoft\_plug\_in\_puts\_Firefox\_users\_at\_risk">left the popular browser open to attack</a>.  This was among the <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139307/Microsoft\_delivers\_massive\_Patch\_Tuesday\_fixes\_34\_flaws">many things recently addressed</a> in the massive Tuesday patch.  <i>"What was particularly galling to users was that once installed, the .NET add-on was virtually impossible to remove from Firefox. The usual 'Disable' and 'Uninstall' buttons in Firefox's add-on list were grayed out on all versions of Windows except Windows 7, leaving most users no alternative other than to root through the Windows registry, a potentially dangerous chore, since a misstep could cripple the PC. Several sites posted complicated directions on how to scrub the .NET add-on from Firefox, including Annoyances.org."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes to mention that the " Windows Presentation Foundation " plugin that Microsoft slipped into Firefox last February apparently left the popular browser open to attack .
This was among the many things recently addressed in the massive Tuesday patch .
" What was particularly galling to users was that once installed , the .NET add-on was virtually impossible to remove from Firefox .
The usual 'Disable ' and 'Uninstall ' buttons in Firefox 's add-on list were grayed out on all versions of Windows except Windows 7 , leaving most users no alternative other than to root through the Windows registry , a potentially dangerous chore , since a misstep could cripple the PC .
Several sites posted complicated directions on how to scrub the .NET add-on from Firefox , including Annoyances.org .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes to mention that the "Windows Presentation Foundation" plugin that Microsoft slipped into Firefox last February apparently left the popular browser open to attack.
This was among the many things recently addressed in the massive Tuesday patch.
"What was particularly galling to users was that once installed, the .NET add-on was virtually impossible to remove from Firefox.
The usual 'Disable' and 'Uninstall' buttons in Firefox's add-on list were grayed out on all versions of Windows except Windows 7, leaving most users no alternative other than to root through the Windows registry, a potentially dangerous chore, since a misstep could cripple the PC.
Several sites posted complicated directions on how to scrub the .NET add-on from Firefox, including Annoyances.org.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29779947</id>
	<title>I don't have any problems with the DOT net...</title>
	<author>Lost Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1255774500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fedora<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fedora : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fedora :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774671</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Firefox allow this?</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1255700220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you let someone run code on your machine, that code can do anything to any installed application. If the application tries to protect itself, then bad guys will simply replace the application with their own code that doesn't try to protect itself.  There is nothing anyone can do to protect you if you let a bad actor run code on your machine.  This was the case of a presumably reputable software vendor performing disreputably. That's not something to optimize for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you let someone run code on your machine , that code can do anything to any installed application .
If the application tries to protect itself , then bad guys will simply replace the application with their own code that does n't try to protect itself .
There is nothing anyone can do to protect you if you let a bad actor run code on your machine .
This was the case of a presumably reputable software vendor performing disreputably .
That 's not something to optimize for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you let someone run code on your machine, that code can do anything to any installed application.
If the application tries to protect itself, then bad guys will simply replace the application with their own code that doesn't try to protect itself.
There is nothing anyone can do to protect you if you let a bad actor run code on your machine.
This was the case of a presumably reputable software vendor performing disreputably.
That's not something to optimize for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773141</id>
	<title>What?  Shouldn't firefox fix this one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So firefox allows a rogue addon to install without any user intervention and the story is all about how evil MSFT is?</p><p>Sure, they did it.  Bad Microsoft.</p><p>But isn't the bigger issue that now that this is known....*anyone* can pull this on firefox users?</p><p>No.  I am not apologizing for Microsoft.  This was "Sony Stupid" of them.  We're used to that here, though.  What we're not used to (and apparently sweeping under the rug) is the massive, unholy hell of a mess mozilla's extension system for firefox is....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So firefox allows a rogue addon to install without any user intervention and the story is all about how evil MSFT is ? Sure , they did it .
Bad Microsoft.But is n't the bigger issue that now that this is known.... * anyone * can pull this on firefox users ? No .
I am not apologizing for Microsoft .
This was " Sony Stupid " of them .
We 're used to that here , though .
What we 're not used to ( and apparently sweeping under the rug ) is the massive , unholy hell of a mess mozilla 's extension system for firefox is... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So firefox allows a rogue addon to install without any user intervention and the story is all about how evil MSFT is?Sure, they did it.
Bad Microsoft.But isn't the bigger issue that now that this is known....*anyone* can pull this on firefox users?No.
I am not apologizing for Microsoft.
This was "Sony Stupid" of them.
We're used to that here, though.
What we're not used to (and apparently sweeping under the rug) is the massive, unholy hell of a mess mozilla's extension system for firefox is....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773337</id>
	<title>Re:Not this shit again.</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1255689780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally get really sick of having to double-take when installing FOSS builds that include ASK/Google/(insert others) toolbar for my browser(s).. used to be it was only in IE.. now they target FF as well...  Maybe Chrome is better off without plugins/extensions/toolbars... I'd be happy if Chrome used the OS's theme and window wrap...  Adding in F12 developer tools like firebug and an adblock plus like feature would be enough for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally get really sick of having to double-take when installing FOSS builds that include ASK/Google/ ( insert others ) toolbar for my browser ( s ) .. used to be it was only in IE.. now they target FF as well... Maybe Chrome is better off without plugins/extensions/toolbars... I 'd be happy if Chrome used the OS 's theme and window wrap... Adding in F12 developer tools like firebug and an adblock plus like feature would be enough for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally get really sick of having to double-take when installing FOSS builds that include ASK/Google/(insert others) toolbar for my browser(s).. used to be it was only in IE.. now they target FF as well...  Maybe Chrome is better off without plugins/extensions/toolbars... I'd be happy if Chrome used the OS's theme and window wrap...  Adding in F12 developer tools like firebug and an adblock plus like feature would be enough for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772741</id>
	<title>Deja-vu</title>
	<author>Dishwasha</author>
	<datestamp>1255686060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me, or were we just talking about <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/05/1532239/MS-Issued-a-Fix-For-Its-Unwanted-FireFox-Extension?art\_pos=14" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or were we just talking about this [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or were we just talking about this [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777605</id>
	<title>Re:What? Shouldn't firefox fix this one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255794540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It just drives home the fact that MS believe they own your system, and they can do<br>whatever they want with it, whenever they want. This is enabled more intimately via the<br>automatic updates process where you're more or less permanently tethered to MS for<br>updates, fixes and other 'good stuff'.</p><p>You're just licensing it from them for a period of time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not actually owning it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just drives home the fact that MS believe they own your system , and they can dowhatever they want with it , whenever they want .
This is enabled more intimately via theautomatic updates process where you 're more or less permanently tethered to MS forupdates , fixes and other 'good stuff'.You 're just licensing it from them for a period of time ... not actually owning it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just drives home the fact that MS believe they own your system, and they can dowhatever they want with it, whenever they want.
This is enabled more intimately via theautomatic updates process where you're more or less permanently tethered to MS forupdates, fixes and other 'good stuff'.You're just licensing it from them for a period of time ... not actually owning it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772787</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1255686240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but if you've bothered to keep up with security updates you would have the ability to uninstall or disable the plug-in without modifying the registry by hand.</p></div><p>You mean <a href="http://adblockplus.org/blog/the-return-of-net-framework-assistant" title="adblockplus.org">like this?</a> [adblockplus.org] That's *no* uninstalling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but if you 've bothered to keep up with security updates you would have the ability to uninstall or disable the plug-in without modifying the registry by hand.You mean like this ?
[ adblockplus.org ] That 's * no * uninstalling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but if you've bothered to keep up with security updates you would have the ability to uninstall or disable the plug-in without modifying the registry by hand.You mean like this?
[adblockplus.org] That's *no* uninstalling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777265</id>
	<title>Risk levels?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turning on your PC is more risky than a normal person editing the windows registry.  I've never harmed my PC by editing the registry. Anyone who can follow detailed instructions won't harm their PC either.</p><p>Get over it. Having a registry with init settings isn't ideal, but it is better than many other alternatives tried elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turning on your PC is more risky than a normal person editing the windows registry .
I 've never harmed my PC by editing the registry .
Anyone who can follow detailed instructions wo n't harm their PC either.Get over it .
Having a registry with init settings is n't ideal , but it is better than many other alternatives tried elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turning on your PC is more risky than a normal person editing the windows registry.
I've never harmed my PC by editing the registry.
Anyone who can follow detailed instructions won't harm their PC either.Get over it.
Having a registry with init settings isn't ideal, but it is better than many other alternatives tried elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772909</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255686900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we please stop with the "It's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry than it is to delete something from the Program Files or Windows folders, and System Restore is more-than-capable of bringing the system back to life after your incompetence" trolling sarcasm?</p><p>I think everyone already agrees both of these are bad ideas, I'm happy this wasn't a problem for you, and <i>no one cares that you were forced to read the same exaggerated warning again</i>.  The horror!</p><p>Microsoft bashing <b>is</b> fun, and we're sticking to the facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please stop with the " It 's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry than it is to delete something from the Program Files or Windows folders , and System Restore is more-than-capable of bringing the system back to life after your incompetence " trolling sarcasm ? I think everyone already agrees both of these are bad ideas , I 'm happy this was n't a problem for you , and no one cares that you were forced to read the same exaggerated warning again .
The horror ! Microsoft bashing is fun , and we 're sticking to the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please stop with the "It's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry than it is to delete something from the Program Files or Windows folders, and System Restore is more-than-capable of bringing the system back to life after your incompetence" trolling sarcasm?I think everyone already agrees both of these are bad ideas, I'm happy this wasn't a problem for you, and no one cares that you were forced to read the same exaggerated warning again.
The horror!Microsoft bashing is fun, and we're sticking to the facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773135</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1255688400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can we please stop with the "registry editing will end the world" warnings? It's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry than it is to delete something from the Program Files or Windows folders, and System Restore is more-than-capable of bringing the system back to life after your incompetence.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Joe Sixpack doesn't have a <b>clue</b> about editing the registry, he just wants something 'That Just Works(tm)'. Anything else, he'll let his 'computer geek kid' screw up for him til it needs to go to the shop, then bitch when they charge him an arm &amp; a leg to fix it. Having done several years of those kinda repairs, I can categorically tell you that a lot of the registry repair software isn't made for the regular user, it's made for us geeks.</p><p>
System Restore in XP takes you back to your restore point. If your restore point includes the 'patch', you're gonna have to start all over again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please stop with the " registry editing will end the world " warnings ?
It 's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry than it is to delete something from the Program Files or Windows folders , and System Restore is more-than-capable of bringing the system back to life after your incompetence .
Joe Sixpack does n't have a clue about editing the registry , he just wants something 'That Just Works ( tm ) ' .
Anything else , he 'll let his 'computer geek kid ' screw up for him til it needs to go to the shop , then bitch when they charge him an arm &amp; a leg to fix it .
Having done several years of those kinda repairs , I can categorically tell you that a lot of the registry repair software is n't made for the regular user , it 's made for us geeks .
System Restore in XP takes you back to your restore point .
If your restore point includes the 'patch ' , you 're gon na have to start all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please stop with the "registry editing will end the world" warnings?
It's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry than it is to delete something from the Program Files or Windows folders, and System Restore is more-than-capable of bringing the system back to life after your incompetence.
Joe Sixpack doesn't have a clue about editing the registry, he just wants something 'That Just Works(tm)'.
Anything else, he'll let his 'computer geek kid' screw up for him til it needs to go to the shop, then bitch when they charge him an arm &amp; a leg to fix it.
Having done several years of those kinda repairs, I can categorically tell you that a lot of the registry repair software isn't made for the regular user, it's made for us geeks.
System Restore in XP takes you back to your restore point.
If your restore point includes the 'patch', you're gonna have to start all over again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775813</id>
	<title>Re:except Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255717200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu, any version of Ubuntu, even 5 year old versions of Ubuntu are upgrades from windows7.  There is your upgrade baby!  Go hard!  Microsoft sabotaging their own users?  What the hell is up with that?  How many times has it happened before?  Serious!  There is something seriously manic about this whole process.  The company keeps bitching its customers.  Screwing them over, fucking them up.  It doesn't give the slightest shit about them.  Bitch slaps them, and makes them pay more every time.  Bend over baby!   And the customers?  THEY KEEP COMING BACK FOR MORE!  Something seriously mental is going on here!  Its not healthy.  Seriously, its time to take a strong coffee, grow a pair, and take a long hard look at whats going on.  Makes you wonder how many of the botnets are run by microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu , any version of Ubuntu , even 5 year old versions of Ubuntu are upgrades from windows7 .
There is your upgrade baby !
Go hard !
Microsoft sabotaging their own users ?
What the hell is up with that ?
How many times has it happened before ?
Serious ! There is something seriously manic about this whole process .
The company keeps bitching its customers .
Screwing them over , fucking them up .
It does n't give the slightest shit about them .
Bitch slaps them , and makes them pay more every time .
Bend over baby !
And the customers ?
THEY KEEP COMING BACK FOR MORE !
Something seriously mental is going on here !
Its not healthy .
Seriously , its time to take a strong coffee , grow a pair , and take a long hard look at whats going on .
Makes you wonder how many of the botnets are run by microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu, any version of Ubuntu, even 5 year old versions of Ubuntu are upgrades from windows7.
There is your upgrade baby!
Go hard!
Microsoft sabotaging their own users?
What the hell is up with that?
How many times has it happened before?
Serious!  There is something seriously manic about this whole process.
The company keeps bitching its customers.
Screwing them over, fucking them up.
It doesn't give the slightest shit about them.
Bitch slaps them, and makes them pay more every time.
Bend over baby!
And the customers?
THEY KEEP COMING BACK FOR MORE!
Something seriously mental is going on here!
Its not healthy.
Seriously, its time to take a strong coffee, grow a pair, and take a long hard look at whats going on.
Makes you wonder how many of the botnets are run by microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774847</id>
	<title>Re:except Windows 7</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1255701960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except in Nebraska.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except in Nebraska .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except in Nebraska.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773111</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255688220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Can we please stop with the "registry editing will end the world" warnings?<br></i><br>I sure wish we would.  One of my co-workers (Who's actually an IT support person and has been for a decade) completely and truly believes that editing the registry is one of the scariest and most dangerous things you could do.  This is the same IT support guy who's afraid of anything that's not a nice GUI.  Command line?  Scripting?  Ohh noes!</p><p>How editing something as simple as the registry has become a dangerous activity for IT personnel is beyond me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please stop with the " registry editing will end the world " warnings ? I sure wish we would .
One of my co-workers ( Who 's actually an IT support person and has been for a decade ) completely and truly believes that editing the registry is one of the scariest and most dangerous things you could do .
This is the same IT support guy who 's afraid of anything that 's not a nice GUI .
Command line ?
Scripting ? Ohh noes ! How editing something as simple as the registry has become a dangerous activity for IT personnel is beyond me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please stop with the "registry editing will end the world" warnings?I sure wish we would.
One of my co-workers (Who's actually an IT support person and has been for a decade) completely and truly believes that editing the registry is one of the scariest and most dangerous things you could do.
This is the same IT support guy who's afraid of anything that's not a nice GUI.
Command line?
Scripting?  Ohh noes!How editing something as simple as the registry has become a dangerous activity for IT personnel is beyond me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773271</id>
	<title>Typical /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255689240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently editors staff at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. must have perceived the MS hate war not getting enough attention.<br>
<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/05/1532239/MS-Issued-a-Fix-For-Its-Unwanted-FireFox-Extension" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">rofl</a> [slashdot.org] <br>
<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/01/2143218/Microsoft-Update-Slips-In-a-Firefox-Extension" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">lawl</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently editors staff at / .
must have perceived the MS hate war not getting enough attention .
rofl [ slashdot.org ] lawl [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently editors staff at /.
must have perceived the MS hate war not getting enough attention.
rofl [slashdot.org] 
lawl [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29790789</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Stephen Samuel</author>
	<datestamp>1255894260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, it is paranoid. How are you finding out about the vulnerability? Because Microsoft patched it last Tuesday. </p></div><p>Microsoft patched it because  the Firefox people informed them that they were going to (out of frustration) explicitly disable it for having an 8 month old unpatched  critical security bug.
</p><p>
With Microsoft now suddenly deciding to patch this bug, Firefox is  only disabling a <i>potentially</i> unpatched security hole that Microsoft hoisted on their  users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is paranoid .
How are you finding out about the vulnerability ?
Because Microsoft patched it last Tuesday .
Microsoft patched it because the Firefox people informed them that they were going to ( out of frustration ) explicitly disable it for having an 8 month old unpatched critical security bug .
With Microsoft now suddenly deciding to patch this bug , Firefox is only disabling a potentially unpatched security hole that Microsoft hoisted on their users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is paranoid.
How are you finding out about the vulnerability?
Because Microsoft patched it last Tuesday.
Microsoft patched it because  the Firefox people informed them that they were going to (out of frustration) explicitly disable it for having an 8 month old unpatched  critical security bug.
With Microsoft now suddenly deciding to patch this bug, Firefox is  only disabling a potentially unpatched security hole that Microsoft hoisted on their  users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774769</id>
	<title>Isn't this like corporate espionage?</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Placing an "add-in" in a competitor's product to render it more vulnerable to attacks and crashes seems like more the DOJ needs to investigate into Microsoft. Because it is hard to remove or disable, it could also be considered malware of some type. There might even be a class action lawsuit against Microsoft for Firefox users. If so sign me up, as that add-in caused my Firefox to crash more often and caused me to lose productivity and gave me emotional and psychological damage. I suffer from schizo affective disorder and the add-in caused crashes and lockups that activated my disorder and made it worse. That makes me more sensitive than normal people.</p><p>It took a registry hack and deletion of hidden files to get rid of it, but my Windows XP crashes every three days now since I removed it. Automatic updates of Dotnet frameworks add it back in for some reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Placing an " add-in " in a competitor 's product to render it more vulnerable to attacks and crashes seems like more the DOJ needs to investigate into Microsoft .
Because it is hard to remove or disable , it could also be considered malware of some type .
There might even be a class action lawsuit against Microsoft for Firefox users .
If so sign me up , as that add-in caused my Firefox to crash more often and caused me to lose productivity and gave me emotional and psychological damage .
I suffer from schizo affective disorder and the add-in caused crashes and lockups that activated my disorder and made it worse .
That makes me more sensitive than normal people.It took a registry hack and deletion of hidden files to get rid of it , but my Windows XP crashes every three days now since I removed it .
Automatic updates of Dotnet frameworks add it back in for some reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Placing an "add-in" in a competitor's product to render it more vulnerable to attacks and crashes seems like more the DOJ needs to investigate into Microsoft.
Because it is hard to remove or disable, it could also be considered malware of some type.
There might even be a class action lawsuit against Microsoft for Firefox users.
If so sign me up, as that add-in caused my Firefox to crash more often and caused me to lose productivity and gave me emotional and psychological damage.
I suffer from schizo affective disorder and the add-in caused crashes and lockups that activated my disorder and made it worse.
That makes me more sensitive than normal people.It took a registry hack and deletion of hidden files to get rid of it, but my Windows XP crashes every three days now since I removed it.
Automatic updates of Dotnet frameworks add it back in for some reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774931</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1255702860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think Microsoft would write bad code to try to make Mozilla look bad. When you hear that MS patched an error it means it's an error in MS code and can in no way reflect well on MS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Microsoft would write bad code to try to make Mozilla look bad .
When you hear that MS patched an error it means it 's an error in MS code and can in no way reflect well on MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Microsoft would write bad code to try to make Mozilla look bad.
When you hear that MS patched an error it means it's an error in MS code and can in no way reflect well on MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</id>
	<title>Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255684740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's a little paranoid , but... Does n't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities ?
I mean , IE is n't doing so well right now , and this could discredit Firefox a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities?
I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774067</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1255694760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Users aren't the best at tracking problems to the source for the purpose of casting blame...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Users are n't the best at tracking problems to the source for the purpose of casting blame.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users aren't the best at tracking problems to the source for the purpose of casting blame...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775639</id>
	<title>ALGOL 60 vs. 68</title>
	<author>Colin Douglas Howell</author>
	<datestamp>1255714140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no clue why he chose ALGOL, except possibly for historical coolness, but he probably selected ALGOL 60 rather than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL\_68" title="wikipedia.org">ALGOL 68</a> [wikipedia.org] because the latter was far more complex and was widely criticized for this, even by some of its own designers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no clue why he chose ALGOL , except possibly for historical coolness , but he probably selected ALGOL 60 rather than ALGOL 68 [ wikipedia.org ] because the latter was far more complex and was widely criticized for this , even by some of its own designers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no clue why he chose ALGOL, except possibly for historical coolness, but he probably selected ALGOL 60 rather than ALGOL 68 [wikipedia.org] because the latter was far more complex and was widely criticized for this, even by some of its own designers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773503</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1255690800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "fact" is, nobody wants their lame ass Flash wannabe junk. Nobody wants to hand edit a multi megabyte sized database file either. If you have installed Firefox, you have REJECTED Microsoft browser technology to begin with.</p><p>You must have installed 3.0? They drive Developers like sheep for new versions, Developers drive users. Find me a single Windows without<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 3.x+ installed.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is pre 3.x only in Icaza&amp;Friends weird, sold out mind. All uses "3.5" because it pops up in Windows update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " fact " is , nobody wants their lame ass Flash wannabe junk .
Nobody wants to hand edit a multi megabyte sized database file either .
If you have installed Firefox , you have REJECTED Microsoft browser technology to begin with.You must have installed 3.0 ?
They drive Developers like sheep for new versions , Developers drive users .
Find me a single Windows without .NET 3.x + installed .
.NET is pre 3.x only in Icaza&amp;Friends weird , sold out mind .
All uses " 3.5 " because it pops up in Windows update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "fact" is, nobody wants their lame ass Flash wannabe junk.
Nobody wants to hand edit a multi megabyte sized database file either.
If you have installed Firefox, you have REJECTED Microsoft browser technology to begin with.You must have installed 3.0?
They drive Developers like sheep for new versions, Developers drive users.
Find me a single Windows without .NET 3.x+ installed.
.NET is pre 3.x only in Icaza&amp;Friends weird, sold out mind.
All uses "3.5" because it pops up in Windows update.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776129</id>
	<title>Mozilla is on top of it, though</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1255811160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This <a href="http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q211/macraig/blockedMSextensions.png" title="photobucket.com">screen capture of a dialog</a> [photobucket.com] I saw tonight demonstrates that Mozilla is paying attention and doing something about it, though:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This screen capture of a dialog [ photobucket.com ] I saw tonight demonstrates that Mozilla is paying attention and doing something about it , though :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This screen capture of a dialog [photobucket.com] I saw tonight demonstrates that Mozilla is paying attention and doing something about it, though:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772623</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1255685340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that sounds like the most likely scenario. It's not just piss poor code, no no. It's definitely a nefarious plan concocted by the Illuminati and put into action by the secret lab they have at Microsoft. First step - fuck up Firefox. Second step - Destroy national borders.</p><p>Too many movies makes you think strange things. For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP. Real life: rotary phones, paperwork in triplicate, and a gigantic fucking bureaucracy that thinks pagers are still useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that sounds like the most likely scenario .
It 's not just piss poor code , no no .
It 's definitely a nefarious plan concocted by the Illuminati and put into action by the secret lab they have at Microsoft .
First step - fuck up Firefox .
Second step - Destroy national borders.Too many movies makes you think strange things .
For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP .
Real life : rotary phones , paperwork in triplicate , and a gigantic fucking bureaucracy that thinks pagers are still useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that sounds like the most likely scenario.
It's not just piss poor code, no no.
It's definitely a nefarious plan concocted by the Illuminati and put into action by the secret lab they have at Microsoft.
First step - fuck up Firefox.
Second step - Destroy national borders.Too many movies makes you think strange things.
For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP.
Real life: rotary phones, paperwork in triplicate, and a gigantic fucking bureaucracy that thinks pagers are still useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772669</id>
	<title>CrippleWare</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1255685640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> There are already a bajillion (non-technical term) of other platforms that can provide dynamic content without needing to get compiled languages like VisualWhatever.NET involved. AJAX is extremely powerful, one among plenty more great cross-code web design patterns, and is more secure than bringing the herpes in the intertubes that much closer to your kernal.

Why in the heck would they wan't to put WPF (more like WTF) in Firefox, besides sabotage any feelings of safety one used to have.  Integrating<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET that closely to the Internet is shady at best.  It becomes no better a situation than getting an ActiveX driveby from unpatched IE (or IED if you will). <br> <br> IMHO, I don't see the need to shove<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET down web users throats, making them vulnerable to more 'root'-owned style attacks by placing the internet one step closer to your local Just In Time (to pwn you) compilers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are already a bajillion ( non-technical term ) of other platforms that can provide dynamic content without needing to get compiled languages like VisualWhatever.NET involved .
AJAX is extremely powerful , one among plenty more great cross-code web design patterns , and is more secure than bringing the herpes in the intertubes that much closer to your kernal .
Why in the heck would they wa n't to put WPF ( more like WTF ) in Firefox , besides sabotage any feelings of safety one used to have .
Integrating .NET that closely to the Internet is shady at best .
It becomes no better a situation than getting an ActiveX driveby from unpatched IE ( or IED if you will ) .
IMHO , I do n't see the need to shove .NET down web users throats , making them vulnerable to more 'root'-owned style attacks by placing the internet one step closer to your local Just In Time ( to pwn you ) compilers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There are already a bajillion (non-technical term) of other platforms that can provide dynamic content without needing to get compiled languages like VisualWhatever.NET involved.
AJAX is extremely powerful, one among plenty more great cross-code web design patterns, and is more secure than bringing the herpes in the intertubes that much closer to your kernal.
Why in the heck would they wan't to put WPF (more like WTF) in Firefox, besides sabotage any feelings of safety one used to have.
Integrating .NET that closely to the Internet is shady at best.
It becomes no better a situation than getting an ActiveX driveby from unpatched IE (or IED if you will).
IMHO, I don't see the need to shove .NET down web users throats, making them vulnerable to more 'root'-owned style attacks by placing the internet one step closer to your local Just In Time (to pwn you) compilers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773601</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255691460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm the one who found and reported one of the vulnerabilities (CVE-2009-0090 [microsoft.com]) in this batch that affects Firefox, and I strongly doubt that it was in any way intentional...remember that IE is hit much worse</p></div></blockquote><p>You're spoiling everyone's fun, you know that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the one who found and reported one of the vulnerabilities ( CVE-2009-0090 [ microsoft.com ] ) in this batch that affects Firefox , and I strongly doubt that it was in any way intentional...remember that IE is hit much worseYou 're spoiling everyone 's fun , you know that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the one who found and reported one of the vulnerabilities (CVE-2009-0090 [microsoft.com]) in this batch that affects Firefox, and I strongly doubt that it was in any way intentional...remember that IE is hit much worseYou're spoiling everyone's fun, you know that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772727</id>
	<title>FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What was particularly galling to users was that once installed, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET add-on was virtually impossible to remove from Firefox. The usual "Disable" and "Uninstall" buttons in Firefox's add-on list were grayed out on all versions of Windows except Windows 7."</p><p>Disable and uninstall were there and working on day fucking 1 for my XP machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What was particularly galling to users was that once installed , the .NET add-on was virtually impossible to remove from Firefox .
The usual " Disable " and " Uninstall " buttons in Firefox 's add-on list were grayed out on all versions of Windows except Windows 7 .
" Disable and uninstall were there and working on day fucking 1 for my XP machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What was particularly galling to users was that once installed, the .NET add-on was virtually impossible to remove from Firefox.
The usual "Disable" and "Uninstall" buttons in Firefox's add-on list were grayed out on all versions of Windows except Windows 7.
"Disable and uninstall were there and working on day fucking 1 for my XP machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772903</id>
	<title>Shouldn't the title read</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1255686900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Microsoft fixes vulnerability in their own Firefox Addon"? The summary would then point out that this was covered and Microsoft fixed the problem. But I guess calling Microsoft "sneaky," ignoring the fact that this was already posted on slashdot, and then minimizing the fact that MS actually fixed the problem was too appealing to pass up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft fixes vulnerability in their own Firefox Addon " ?
The summary would then point out that this was covered and Microsoft fixed the problem .
But I guess calling Microsoft " sneaky , " ignoring the fact that this was already posted on slashdot , and then minimizing the fact that MS actually fixed the problem was too appealing to pass up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft fixes vulnerability in their own Firefox Addon"?
The summary would then point out that this was covered and Microsoft fixed the problem.
But I guess calling Microsoft "sneaky," ignoring the fact that this was already posted on slashdot, and then minimizing the fact that MS actually fixed the problem was too appealing to pass up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772875</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1255686720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>It's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry</i>"</p><p>Perhaps, but...</p><ol><li>This kinda invalidates the argument that Windows fanboys have been spouting for years, namely "...but in Linux/BSD/Whatever, you have to edit files, which is too hard for Joe Sixpack to do!"</li><li>If you bork the registry, discover it's borked only after a full reboot/log-in, then try to reboot again thinking it's some other problem, that backup copy of the registry just went 'pfft!', and you may or may not be able to get to a point where you can use System Restore</li><li>The registry makes a great place to hide stuff in (see also half the malware to come down the pike in the past 9 years)</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry " Perhaps , but...This kinda invalidates the argument that Windows fanboys have been spouting for years , namely " ...but in Linux/BSD/Whatever , you have to edit files , which is too hard for Joe Sixpack to do !
" If you bork the registry , discover it 's borked only after a full reboot/log-in , then try to reboot again thinking it 's some other problem , that backup copy of the registry just went 'pfft !
' , and you may or may not be able to get to a point where you can use System RestoreThe registry makes a great place to hide stuff in ( see also half the malware to come down the pike in the past 9 years )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry"Perhaps, but...This kinda invalidates the argument that Windows fanboys have been spouting for years, namely "...but in Linux/BSD/Whatever, you have to edit files, which is too hard for Joe Sixpack to do!
"If you bork the registry, discover it's borked only after a full reboot/log-in, then try to reboot again thinking it's some other problem, that backup copy of the registry just went 'pfft!
', and you may or may not be able to get to a point where you can use System RestoreThe registry makes a great place to hide stuff in (see also half the malware to come down the pike in the past 9 years)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29778525</id>
	<title>Why can't use disable or uninstall buttons?</title>
	<author>randomProof</author>
	<datestamp>1255803840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I don't get is why Mozilla allows extensions to disable the "disable" and "uninstall" buttons at all.  The program makes to wait 5 seconds when you add extensions through the program, but doesn't warn you that a 3rd party installed an extension.  Also, that registry key for extensions probably should even exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is why Mozilla allows extensions to disable the " disable " and " uninstall " buttons at all .
The program makes to wait 5 seconds when you add extensions through the program , but does n't warn you that a 3rd party installed an extension .
Also , that registry key for extensions probably should even exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is why Mozilla allows extensions to disable the "disable" and "uninstall" buttons at all.
The program makes to wait 5 seconds when you add extensions through the program, but doesn't warn you that a 3rd party installed an extension.
Also, that registry key for extensions probably should even exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774581</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1255699440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe the warnings are based on m$ catering to Soccer Moms, and Baseball Dads.  These parental units have excellent curvilinear insights, and a need to "go it alone".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the warnings are based on m $ catering to Soccer Moms , and Baseball Dads .
These parental units have excellent curvilinear insights , and a need to " go it alone " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the warnings are based on m$ catering to Soccer Moms, and Baseball Dads.
These parental units have excellent curvilinear insights, and a need to "go it alone".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774687</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1255700340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go with me on this one. *ahem*</p><p>"Windows will NEVER be ready for the desktop until you can remove a plugin without hacking the registry. If a user has to open regedit.exe MS has already failed."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go with me on this one .
* ahem * " Windows will NEVER be ready for the desktop until you can remove a plugin without hacking the registry .
If a user has to open regedit.exe MS has already failed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go with me on this one.
*ahem*"Windows will NEVER be ready for the desktop until you can remove a plugin without hacking the registry.
If a user has to open regedit.exe MS has already failed.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773535</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1255690980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It discredits MS and MSIE even more.
</p><p>
Firefox is a secure browser... hackers couldn't run arbitrary code in it and the <b>one</b> major vulnerability turns out to be an unauthorized, unsupported modification to the browser by Microsoft.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It discredits MS and MSIE even more .
Firefox is a secure browser... hackers could n't run arbitrary code in it and the one major vulnerability turns out to be an unauthorized , unsupported modification to the browser by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It discredits MS and MSIE even more.
Firefox is a secure browser... hackers couldn't run arbitrary code in it and the one major vulnerability turns out to be an unauthorized, unsupported modification to the browser by Microsoft.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775647</id>
	<title>Firefox is blocking it now</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1255714260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this why all my computers are suddenly telling me that these plugins are unstable and should be disabled?  I was wondering why all of a sudden all my computers starting complaining about these add-ons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this why all my computers are suddenly telling me that these plugins are unstable and should be disabled ?
I was wondering why all of a sudden all my computers starting complaining about these add-ons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this why all my computers are suddenly telling me that these plugins are unstable and should be disabled?
I was wondering why all of a sudden all my computers starting complaining about these add-ons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775597</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>runningduck</author>
	<datestamp>1255713600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would even go as far as to say it could fit the legal merits of a cyber crime.  The "patch" installed into a 3rd party "system" called Firefox without explicit permission from either the "system administrator" or the other vendor.  The result of the action potentially created a back door on the overall system.  Hmmm, I have seen people become felons under cyber crime laws for much less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would even go as far as to say it could fit the legal merits of a cyber crime .
The " patch " installed into a 3rd party " system " called Firefox without explicit permission from either the " system administrator " or the other vendor .
The result of the action potentially created a back door on the overall system .
Hmmm , I have seen people become felons under cyber crime laws for much less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would even go as far as to say it could fit the legal merits of a cyber crime.
The "patch" installed into a 3rd party "system" called Firefox without explicit permission from either the "system administrator" or the other vendor.
The result of the action potentially created a back door on the overall system.
Hmmm, I have seen people become felons under cyber crime laws for much less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773123</id>
	<title>Here we go again.</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1255688340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many times must we hear about this plugin? This is at least the third time I've seen an article on it.</p><p>If you got 1.0 of the plugin and want to get rid of it, get the update <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9449" title="mozilla.org">here</a> [mozilla.org] or <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=CECC62DC-96A7-4657-AF91-6383BA034EAB&amp;displaylang=en" title="microsoft.com">Here</a> [microsoft.com], install it, and then uninstall it.</p><p>I'm saving this in my journal. That way, when they post the next<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET plugin story next month, I can just post the journal link. Maybe I can keep the story count there too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times must we hear about this plugin ?
This is at least the third time I 've seen an article on it.If you got 1.0 of the plugin and want to get rid of it , get the update here [ mozilla.org ] or Here [ microsoft.com ] , install it , and then uninstall it.I 'm saving this in my journal .
That way , when they post the next .NET plugin story next month , I can just post the journal link .
Maybe I can keep the story count there too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times must we hear about this plugin?
This is at least the third time I've seen an article on it.If you got 1.0 of the plugin and want to get rid of it, get the update here [mozilla.org] or Here [microsoft.com], install it, and then uninstall it.I'm saving this in my journal.
That way, when they post the next .NET plugin story next month, I can just post the journal link.
Maybe I can keep the story count there too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</id>
	<title>Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we please stop with the "registry editing will end the world" warnings? It's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry than it is to delete something from the Program Files or Windows folders, and System Restore is more-than-capable of bringing the system back to life after your incompetence.</p><p>Also, the ability to remove this plug-in was covered on Slashdot a few months ago when Microsoft released version 1.1. It was included in an earlier service release to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework for Windows XP and Windows Vista. This plug-in doesn't even exist in Windows XP by default. You must have installed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework 3.0 or higher to get it. Windows Vista includes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework 3.0, but if you've bothered to keep up with security updates you would have the ability to uninstall or disable the plug-in without modifying the registry by hand. Windows 7 allows you to do it because the earlier service release is part of the operating system.</p><p>Microsoft bashing is fun, but let's stick to facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please stop with the " registry editing will end the world " warnings ?
It 's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry than it is to delete something from the Program Files or Windows folders , and System Restore is more-than-capable of bringing the system back to life after your incompetence.Also , the ability to remove this plug-in was covered on Slashdot a few months ago when Microsoft released version 1.1 .
It was included in an earlier service release to the .NET Framework for Windows XP and Windows Vista .
This plug-in does n't even exist in Windows XP by default .
You must have installed .NET Framework 3.0 or higher to get it .
Windows Vista includes .NET Framework 3.0 , but if you 've bothered to keep up with security updates you would have the ability to uninstall or disable the plug-in without modifying the registry by hand .
Windows 7 allows you to do it because the earlier service release is part of the operating system.Microsoft bashing is fun , but let 's stick to facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please stop with the "registry editing will end the world" warnings?
It's no more dangerous to delete something from your registry than it is to delete something from the Program Files or Windows folders, and System Restore is more-than-capable of bringing the system back to life after your incompetence.Also, the ability to remove this plug-in was covered on Slashdot a few months ago when Microsoft released version 1.1.
It was included in an earlier service release to the .NET Framework for Windows XP and Windows Vista.
This plug-in doesn't even exist in Windows XP by default.
You must have installed .NET Framework 3.0 or higher to get it.
Windows Vista includes .NET Framework 3.0, but if you've bothered to keep up with security updates you would have the ability to uninstall or disable the plug-in without modifying the registry by hand.
Windows 7 allows you to do it because the earlier service release is part of the operating system.Microsoft bashing is fun, but let's stick to facts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775501</id>
	<title>Re:Not this shit again.</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1255711800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are lots of programs that install plugins automagically...Skype, antiviruses, and Picasa are a few that I can think of off the top of my head. The only bad part of this whole thing is that MS screwed up the remove/uninstall feature by making it show up for all users.</p></div><p>No.  This was an auto-install of a new plugin during an auto-update for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework.  It's like a car shop installing a GPS device in your car unasked when you go in for a routine oil-change.  Maybe you want to use it, maybe you don't.  Maybe they shouldn't have drilled holes in your dashboard and riveted it in place.  Oh, and it seems to make your car a target for smash 'n grab thieves...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of programs that install plugins automagically...Skype , antiviruses , and Picasa are a few that I can think of off the top of my head .
The only bad part of this whole thing is that MS screwed up the remove/uninstall feature by making it show up for all users.No .
This was an auto-install of a new plugin during an auto-update for .NET framework .
It 's like a car shop installing a GPS device in your car unasked when you go in for a routine oil-change .
Maybe you want to use it , maybe you do n't .
Maybe they should n't have drilled holes in your dashboard and riveted it in place .
Oh , and it seems to make your car a target for smash 'n grab thieves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of programs that install plugins automagically...Skype, antiviruses, and Picasa are a few that I can think of off the top of my head.
The only bad part of this whole thing is that MS screwed up the remove/uninstall feature by making it show up for all users.No.
This was an auto-install of a new plugin during an auto-update for .NET framework.
It's like a car shop installing a GPS device in your car unasked when you go in for a routine oil-change.
Maybe you want to use it, maybe you don't.
Maybe they shouldn't have drilled holes in your dashboard and riveted it in place.
Oh, and it seems to make your car a target for smash 'n grab thieves...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773413</id>
	<title>Firefox extension? What about a plugin installed</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1255690260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They somehow managed to convince Telestream to slipstream Silverlight to "Windows Media Components for Quicktime" taking all the responsibility for future disasters. If anyone from that once serious pro media company reading this: Expect a security disaster in upcoming future which YOUR name will be mentioned.</p><p>If you install "Windows Media Components for Quicktime" today with default choices (like 99.9\%) you will have a nice, shiny Silverlight in your Internet Plugins folder which means \_every browser on OS X\_ will load by default, to thread 0. (except SL Safari in 64bit mode).</p><p>We all thought they bought global license of that $10 shareware to undo the real scandal of Wmedia not being maintained but as usual, some IDIOT there had his own lame little "World domination plan" at MSFT.</p><p>Of course, wmedia player is not maintained and yet kept on download site, to bait unsuspecting windows switchers which will definitely result in complete browser instability disaster if installed to ANY modern OS X, both PPC and Intel. Somehow I suspect Silverlight for OS X or Silverlight related stuff on Firefox will be the last to be fixed. You know, you don't use their OS/app, you gotta be punished accordingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They somehow managed to convince Telestream to slipstream Silverlight to " Windows Media Components for Quicktime " taking all the responsibility for future disasters .
If anyone from that once serious pro media company reading this : Expect a security disaster in upcoming future which YOUR name will be mentioned.If you install " Windows Media Components for Quicktime " today with default choices ( like 99.9 \ % ) you will have a nice , shiny Silverlight in your Internet Plugins folder which means \ _every browser on OS X \ _ will load by default , to thread 0 .
( except SL Safari in 64bit mode ) .We all thought they bought global license of that $ 10 shareware to undo the real scandal of Wmedia not being maintained but as usual , some IDIOT there had his own lame little " World domination plan " at MSFT.Of course , wmedia player is not maintained and yet kept on download site , to bait unsuspecting windows switchers which will definitely result in complete browser instability disaster if installed to ANY modern OS X , both PPC and Intel .
Somehow I suspect Silverlight for OS X or Silverlight related stuff on Firefox will be the last to be fixed .
You know , you do n't use their OS/app , you got ta be punished accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They somehow managed to convince Telestream to slipstream Silverlight to "Windows Media Components for Quicktime" taking all the responsibility for future disasters.
If anyone from that once serious pro media company reading this: Expect a security disaster in upcoming future which YOUR name will be mentioned.If you install "Windows Media Components for Quicktime" today with default choices (like 99.9\%) you will have a nice, shiny Silverlight in your Internet Plugins folder which means \_every browser on OS X\_ will load by default, to thread 0.
(except SL Safari in 64bit mode).We all thought they bought global license of that $10 shareware to undo the real scandal of Wmedia not being maintained but as usual, some IDIOT there had his own lame little "World domination plan" at MSFT.Of course, wmedia player is not maintained and yet kept on download site, to bait unsuspecting windows switchers which will definitely result in complete browser instability disaster if installed to ANY modern OS X, both PPC and Intel.
Somehow I suspect Silverlight for OS X or Silverlight related stuff on Firefox will be the last to be fixed.
You know, you don't use their OS/app, you gotta be punished accordingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471</id>
	<title>except Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255684500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best upgrade then ya lusers!.. Here is an online form to order your shiny new pc with Windows 7..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best upgrade then ya lusers ! . .
Here is an online form to order your shiny new pc with Windows 7. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best upgrade then ya lusers!..
Here is an online form to order your shiny new pc with Windows 7..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773675</id>
	<title>Uncle Bill likes wooden shoes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255692060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just another example of Microsoft intentionally sabotaging their own software to interfere with the operation of a non-Microsoft application. They got sued for that once, and it cost them something like a billion dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another example of Microsoft intentionally sabotaging their own software to interfere with the operation of a non-Microsoft application .
They got sued for that once , and it cost them something like a billion dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another example of Microsoft intentionally sabotaging their own software to interfere with the operation of a non-Microsoft application.
They got sued for that once, and it cost them something like a billion dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775223</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1255707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it is paranoid. How are you finding out about the vulnerability? Because Microsoft patched it last Tuesday. If they wanted to discredit Firefox they would have shipped something to take advantage of the security hole, not something to fix it. Besides, a security hole that only exists on the Windows version of Firefox (and will inevitably be traced back to their code) just makes it look like it is better to run FF on Linux rather than Windows - which would NOT be what they wanted.</p><p>The sad part is that this could have gone so well for them. This should have been remembered for Microsoft supporting alternate browsers under Windows so it would be one less reason to say how IE has an unfair advantage. I could (barely) forgive them for silently installing it the extension because from Microsoft's point of view they are adding support for Firefox to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET rather than the other way around.</p><p>What was unforgivable was shipping this without the ability to disable the extension. Even if they had never contemplated the idea that anyone would want to uninstall it, it should have been blindingly obvious that a grayed out Disable button meant that this would stand out from other extensions. They couldn't just say that they didn't notice that it was not able to be uninstalled.</p><p>I would like to know how you disable those buttons. Is there some API call when installing the extension (meaning it is a deliberate feature, for which both Microsoft and Mozilla should be shot)? Is it caused by a lack of uninstall script (meaning Microsoft did a half-arsed job of writing the extension)? Or is it a permissions thing that the update was installed by the Administrator account and limited users were not allowed to delete the files/registry keys (meaning... I don't know what to think of that option)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is paranoid .
How are you finding out about the vulnerability ?
Because Microsoft patched it last Tuesday .
If they wanted to discredit Firefox they would have shipped something to take advantage of the security hole , not something to fix it .
Besides , a security hole that only exists on the Windows version of Firefox ( and will inevitably be traced back to their code ) just makes it look like it is better to run FF on Linux rather than Windows - which would NOT be what they wanted.The sad part is that this could have gone so well for them .
This should have been remembered for Microsoft supporting alternate browsers under Windows so it would be one less reason to say how IE has an unfair advantage .
I could ( barely ) forgive them for silently installing it the extension because from Microsoft 's point of view they are adding support for Firefox to .NET rather than the other way around.What was unforgivable was shipping this without the ability to disable the extension .
Even if they had never contemplated the idea that anyone would want to uninstall it , it should have been blindingly obvious that a grayed out Disable button meant that this would stand out from other extensions .
They could n't just say that they did n't notice that it was not able to be uninstalled.I would like to know how you disable those buttons .
Is there some API call when installing the extension ( meaning it is a deliberate feature , for which both Microsoft and Mozilla should be shot ) ?
Is it caused by a lack of uninstall script ( meaning Microsoft did a half-arsed job of writing the extension ) ?
Or is it a permissions thing that the update was installed by the Administrator account and limited users were not allowed to delete the files/registry keys ( meaning... I do n't know what to think of that option ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is paranoid.
How are you finding out about the vulnerability?
Because Microsoft patched it last Tuesday.
If they wanted to discredit Firefox they would have shipped something to take advantage of the security hole, not something to fix it.
Besides, a security hole that only exists on the Windows version of Firefox (and will inevitably be traced back to their code) just makes it look like it is better to run FF on Linux rather than Windows - which would NOT be what they wanted.The sad part is that this could have gone so well for them.
This should have been remembered for Microsoft supporting alternate browsers under Windows so it would be one less reason to say how IE has an unfair advantage.
I could (barely) forgive them for silently installing it the extension because from Microsoft's point of view they are adding support for Firefox to .NET rather than the other way around.What was unforgivable was shipping this without the ability to disable the extension.
Even if they had never contemplated the idea that anyone would want to uninstall it, it should have been blindingly obvious that a grayed out Disable button meant that this would stand out from other extensions.
They couldn't just say that they didn't notice that it was not able to be uninstalled.I would like to know how you disable those buttons.
Is there some API call when installing the extension (meaning it is a deliberate feature, for which both Microsoft and Mozilla should be shot)?
Is it caused by a lack of uninstall script (meaning Microsoft did a half-arsed job of writing the extension)?
Or is it a permissions thing that the update was installed by the Administrator account and limited users were not allowed to delete the files/registry keys (meaning... I don't know what to think of that option)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773127</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing</title>
	<author>Tranzistors</author>
	<datestamp>1255688340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, they know what they are talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , they know what they are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, they know what they are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29779615</id>
	<title>Perrfect timing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255771080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I opened this article on Slashdot, Firefox announced it wanted to disable this service, and would I please allow it to restart so it could do so permanently. It's nice to have a proactive fix, with the ability to opt-out if you choose!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I opened this article on Slashdot , Firefox announced it wanted to disable this service , and would I please allow it to restart so it could do so permanently .
It 's nice to have a proactive fix , with the ability to opt-out if you choose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I opened this article on Slashdot, Firefox announced it wanted to disable this service, and would I please allow it to restart so it could do so permanently.
It's nice to have a proactive fix, with the ability to opt-out if you choose!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772725</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1255685940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is, its pretty easy to figure out what things do in the Program Files directory, the Windows directory is a bit more confusing, but a lot of it is still pretty easy to figure out. Good luck for an average computer user to figure out what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\ SOFTWARE\etc. is compared to Program Files and X program.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is , its pretty easy to figure out what things do in the Program Files directory , the Windows directory is a bit more confusing , but a lot of it is still pretty easy to figure out .
Good luck for an average computer user to figure out what /HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ etc .
is compared to Program Files and X program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is, its pretty easy to figure out what things do in the Program Files directory, the Windows directory is a bit more confusing, but a lot of it is still pretty easy to figure out.
Good luck for an average computer user to figure out what /HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\ SOFTWARE\etc.
is compared to Program Files and X program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772901</id>
	<title>The only thing in the mind of the predator...</title>
	<author>MindPrison</author>
	<datestamp>1255686900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is the enemy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is the enemy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is the enemy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773709</id>
	<title>Re:except Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255692240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... here's a novel idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... get ready<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>maybe microsoft could try making good quality products that people want to use instead of spending all their money on subversive, childish, and frankly idiotic, endeavors to stem the flow of users away from their products.</p><p>they have been doing the same crap for years with every piece of software in the market that's not theirs. they release an update that makes it insecure or unstable.</p><p>not that they care, but i have no respect whatsoever for the poor excuses for businessmen that run Microsoft.</p><p>nothing new though i guess<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... rather than come out with something useful that makes the world better they just keep churning out the same old crap and bulldoze anyone who gets in their way just like the insurance industry, petroleum industry etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sigh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or ... here 's a novel idea ... get ready ...maybe microsoft could try making good quality products that people want to use instead of spending all their money on subversive , childish , and frankly idiotic , endeavors to stem the flow of users away from their products.they have been doing the same crap for years with every piece of software in the market that 's not theirs .
they release an update that makes it insecure or unstable.not that they care , but i have no respect whatsoever for the poor excuses for businessmen that run Microsoft.nothing new though i guess ... rather than come out with something useful that makes the world better they just keep churning out the same old crap and bulldoze anyone who gets in their way just like the insurance industry , petroleum industry etc .
/sigh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or ... here's a novel idea ... get ready ...maybe microsoft could try making good quality products that people want to use instead of spending all their money on subversive, childish, and frankly idiotic, endeavors to stem the flow of users away from their products.they have been doing the same crap for years with every piece of software in the market that's not theirs.
they release an update that makes it insecure or unstable.not that they care, but i have no respect whatsoever for the poor excuses for businessmen that run Microsoft.nothing new though i guess ... rather than come out with something useful that makes the world better they just keep churning out the same old crap and bulldoze anyone who gets in their way just like the insurance industry, petroleum industry etc.
/sigh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772837</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>fhuglegads</author>
	<datestamp>1255686540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you've bothered to keep up with security updates you would have the ability to uninstall or disable the plug-in without modifying the registry by hand. </p></div><p>no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET on my windows box.<br>
never installed a service pack or an update<br>
my system works based on the os that was on it when i bought it 3 years ago. there is no reason to let microsoft go and mess up something I already don't like by changing it.<br> <br>
I only use windows for one game that doesn't run under Wine. As far as my work pc goes... that's filed under SEP.. Someone Else's Problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you 've bothered to keep up with security updates you would have the ability to uninstall or disable the plug-in without modifying the registry by hand .
no .NET on my windows box .
never installed a service pack or an update my system works based on the os that was on it when i bought it 3 years ago .
there is no reason to let microsoft go and mess up something I already do n't like by changing it .
I only use windows for one game that does n't run under Wine .
As far as my work pc goes... that 's filed under SEP.. Someone Else 's Problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you've bothered to keep up with security updates you would have the ability to uninstall or disable the plug-in without modifying the registry by hand.
no .NET on my windows box.
never installed a service pack or an update
my system works based on the os that was on it when i bought it 3 years ago.
there is no reason to let microsoft go and mess up something I already don't like by changing it.
I only use windows for one game that doesn't run under Wine.
As far as my work pc goes... that's filed under SEP.. Someone Else's Problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772519</id>
	<title>remember the important part</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1255684800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the big deal here is they never uninstalled it off the people they shoved it on. They simply gave a way to uninstall it.</p><p>Thus, now it's harder for firefox to say it's safer while said plugin is installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the big deal here is they never uninstalled it off the people they shoved it on .
They simply gave a way to uninstall it.Thus , now it 's harder for firefox to say it 's safer while said plugin is installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the big deal here is they never uninstalled it off the people they shoved it on.
They simply gave a way to uninstall it.Thus, now it's harder for firefox to say it's safer while said plugin is installed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773145</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing</title>
	<author>Pollardito</author>
	<datestamp>1255688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It'll be ok though, because Google is making a plugin for this plugin</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be ok though , because Google is making a plugin for this plugin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be ok though, because Google is making a plugin for this plugin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772617</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1255685340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.</p></div><p>It's not paranoid, and yes they do. Making the competitor look bad is the key to success in modern politics, why would it be different in business?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's a little paranoid , but... Does n't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities ?
I mean , IE is n't doing so well right now , and this could discredit Firefox a little.It 's not paranoid , and yes they do .
Making the competitor look bad is the key to success in modern politics , why would it be different in business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities?
I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.It's not paranoid, and yes they do.
Making the competitor look bad is the key to success in modern politics, why would it be different in business?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773683</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255692120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're absolutely correct. It's far more dangerous editing a linux conf file than it is editing the registry. (I should know - all my mounts vanished when I used spaces rather than tabs in fstab)</p><p>But some stupid person will go crazy and delete everything in the registry if you don't put up those scary warnings.</p><p>In all my years of windows use, and frequent registry editing, I've never caused a serious problem by deleting stuff. I always make a backup of keys, just in case, but I've never needed to restore one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely correct .
It 's far more dangerous editing a linux conf file than it is editing the registry .
( I should know - all my mounts vanished when I used spaces rather than tabs in fstab ) But some stupid person will go crazy and delete everything in the registry if you do n't put up those scary warnings.In all my years of windows use , and frequent registry editing , I 've never caused a serious problem by deleting stuff .
I always make a backup of keys , just in case , but I 've never needed to restore one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely correct.
It's far more dangerous editing a linux conf file than it is editing the registry.
(I should know - all my mounts vanished when I used spaces rather than tabs in fstab)But some stupid person will go crazy and delete everything in the registry if you don't put up those scary warnings.In all my years of windows use, and frequent registry editing, I've never caused a serious problem by deleting stuff.
I always make a backup of keys, just in case, but I've never needed to restore one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773351</id>
	<title>Apples to Oranges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255689840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's only insecure if it isn't done by Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's only insecure if it is n't done by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's only insecure if it isn't done by Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772643</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET vulnerability, on MS Windows. Firefox being the vehicle is entirely Microsoft's fault as the maintainer of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET plugin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a .NET vulnerability , on MS Windows .
Firefox being the vehicle is entirely Microsoft 's fault as the maintainer of the .NET plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a .NET vulnerability, on MS Windows.
Firefox being the vehicle is entirely Microsoft's fault as the maintainer of the .NET plugin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777199</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1255791180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The registry also suffers from the common problem of all single-use binary formats: you can't examine or manage it with existing tools. For example, how would you go about comparing two copies of the registry for incremental changes (without first exporting both to plain text)?</i> <br> <br>There are tools to do this. But it isn't so easy if you are only interested in changes related to application X...<br> <br> <i>The mass of plain-text configuration files used on Unix systems may have some flaws--they could certainly be made more uniform--but at least you have a wide variety of general-purpose tools available to help manage the complexity.</i> <br> <br>Having lots of different files also means that it is considerably harder to break the whole OS by altering things.<br> <br> <i>With the registry you have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... RegEdit. That's fine for reading and writing specific keys, but not much else.</i> <br> <br>Must be one of the few "editors" which lacks a find/replace feature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The registry also suffers from the common problem of all single-use binary formats : you ca n't examine or manage it with existing tools .
For example , how would you go about comparing two copies of the registry for incremental changes ( without first exporting both to plain text ) ?
There are tools to do this .
But it is n't so easy if you are only interested in changes related to application X... The mass of plain-text configuration files used on Unix systems may have some flaws--they could certainly be made more uniform--but at least you have a wide variety of general-purpose tools available to help manage the complexity .
Having lots of different files also means that it is considerably harder to break the whole OS by altering things .
With the registry you have ... RegEdit. That 's fine for reading and writing specific keys , but not much else .
Must be one of the few " editors " which lacks a find/replace feature : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The registry also suffers from the common problem of all single-use binary formats: you can't examine or manage it with existing tools.
For example, how would you go about comparing two copies of the registry for incremental changes (without first exporting both to plain text)?
There are tools to do this.
But it isn't so easy if you are only interested in changes related to application X...  The mass of plain-text configuration files used on Unix systems may have some flaws--they could certainly be made more uniform--but at least you have a wide variety of general-purpose tools available to help manage the complexity.
Having lots of different files also means that it is considerably harder to break the whole OS by altering things.
With the registry you have ... RegEdit. That's fine for reading and writing specific keys, but not much else.
Must be one of the few "editors" which lacks a find/replace feature :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777711</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1255795740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure! They would love to have numbers showing that Firefox is just as vulnerable as IE. Even if they have to hack on it in order to get such numbers. It's much easier to introduce vulnerability than it is to remove or avoid it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure !
They would love to have numbers showing that Firefox is just as vulnerable as IE .
Even if they have to hack on it in order to get such numbers .
It 's much easier to introduce vulnerability than it is to remove or avoid it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure!
They would love to have numbers showing that Firefox is just as vulnerable as IE.
Even if they have to hack on it in order to get such numbers.
It's much easier to introduce vulnerability than it is to remove or avoid it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772947</id>
	<title>Congrats....M$, nice on, you sick bastards</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1255687200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice job, of trying to push the blame on a third party software that is kicking your own apps ass when it comes to web browsing!<br>So what to do, say could we not develop a nice little add on , that allows remote execution once infected and destroys that apps security...and also make it impossible through windows (M$) to uninstall.</p><p>Wow, nice one...<br>-clap/clap/clap</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice job , of trying to push the blame on a third party software that is kicking your own apps ass when it comes to web browsing ! So what to do , say could we not develop a nice little add on , that allows remote execution once infected and destroys that apps security...and also make it impossible through windows ( M $ ) to uninstall.Wow , nice one...-clap/clap/clap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice job, of trying to push the blame on a third party software that is kicking your own apps ass when it comes to web browsing!So what to do, say could we not develop a nice little add on , that allows remote execution once infected and destroys that apps security...and also make it impossible through windows (M$) to uninstall.Wow, nice one...-clap/clap/clap</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773341</id>
	<title>Re:except anything but Windoze</title>
	<author>Hymer</author>
	<datestamp>1255689780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may find free and secure alternatives to Windows at <a href="http://ubuntu.com/" title="ubuntu.com" rel="nofollow">http://ubuntu.com/</a> [ubuntu.com] or <a href="http://opensuse.org/" title="opensuse.org" rel="nofollow">http://opensuse.org/</a> [opensuse.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may find free and secure alternatives to Windows at http : //ubuntu.com/ [ ubuntu.com ] or http : //opensuse.org/ [ opensuse.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may find free and secure alternatives to Windows at http://ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com] or http://opensuse.org/ [opensuse.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776771</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1255785780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I was designing an Algol-60 compiler targetting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET</p></div></blockquote><p>You too?  Small world or what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was designing an Algol-60 compiler targetting .NETYou too ?
Small world or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was designing an Algol-60 compiler targetting .NETYou too?
Small world or what?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29782071</id>
	<title>Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255804020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The evil MS writes a patch for leetist software? Fucking hilarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The evil MS writes a patch for leetist software ?
Fucking hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The evil MS writes a patch for leetist software?
Fucking hilarious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777201</id>
	<title>Disabling it also kills Google Wave...</title>
	<author>pdboddy</author>
	<datestamp>1255791180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It appears that disabling this sneaky MS addon also prevents Google Wave from loading.  It was working fine until the warning popped up, and of course I trusted Firefox.  Now I can only get the outlines of the waves, but no text or other content.<br> <br>
Now using Google Chrome...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that disabling this sneaky MS addon also prevents Google Wave from loading .
It was working fine until the warning popped up , and of course I trusted Firefox .
Now I can only get the outlines of the waves , but no text or other content .
Now using Google Chrome... : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that disabling this sneaky MS addon also prevents Google Wave from loading.
It was working fine until the warning popped up, and of course I trusted Firefox.
Now I can only get the outlines of the waves, but no text or other content.
Now using Google Chrome... :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773611</id>
	<title>Win7 doesn't offer uninstall option</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1255691580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm currently running the Win7RC and let me tell you, the only option it offers is the ability to disable it. Just like there's no way to remove the Office Plug-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently running the Win7RC and let me tell you , the only option it offers is the ability to disable it .
Just like there 's no way to remove the Office Plug-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently running the Win7RC and let me tell you, the only option it offers is the ability to disable it.
Just like there's no way to remove the Office Plug-in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772937</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Killer Orca</author>
	<datestamp>1255687080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at my add/remove programs list I have 4 different versions of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net framework installed, I wish all the programs that relied on them would be able to use the latest one, but unfortunately they do not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at my add/remove programs list I have 4 different versions of the .Net framework installed , I wish all the programs that relied on them would be able to use the latest one , but unfortunately they do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at my add/remove programs list I have 4 different versions of the .Net framework installed, I wish all the programs that relied on them would be able to use the latest one, but unfortunately they do not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773707</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't the title read</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1255692240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically the plugin is installed in a sneaky unapproved manner, and opens up vulnerabilities. The title fits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically the plugin is installed in a sneaky unapproved manner , and opens up vulnerabilities .
The title fits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically the plugin is installed in a sneaky unapproved manner, and opens up vulnerabilities.
The title fits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775389</id>
	<title>Like this was accidental on MS's behalf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255709700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm...Microsoft silently installs the Windows Presentation Foundation plugin into Firefox. Microsoft then makes sure that all users, unless you run Windows 7 which has just been released, can't disable or remove it. Sounds like a sneaky way for Microsoft to get consumers to think that Firefox is no more secure than IE once the WPF plugin has allowed malicious software to be silently installed on consumer computers. Think about it. Why on God's green Earth would MS deliberately make the plugin uninstallable and non-disableable, let alone even allowing it to be installed without the consumer's permission in the first place? Only one reason comes to mind -- to discredit Firefox as being an inherently safer web browser compared to IE.</p><p>This reminds me of Microsoft's sneaky tactic where upgrading from IE6 to IE7 deliberately deleted a couple of DLLs which many older Win9X programs need to properly display dialog boxes and buttons. Microsoft then claimed that those two "missing" DLLs were Vista-only DLLs and that they were never a part of any Microsoft OS prior to Vista. Those two DLLs have been part of the Windows OS since Windows 98, yet Microsoft vehemently denied this fact. Instead Microsoft told consumers that they should upgrade from XP to Vista for better program compatibility. MS will try anything when sales are flat. Why not? They have gotten away with far worse in the past. Remember when MS stole the Stacker compression code, byte-for-byte, and used it in their Doublespace compression program? All they got was a court order to get rid of the Doublespace code and replace it with their own compression algorithms which MS then called Drivespace. Yet Stac Electronics was put out of business literally overnight, which of course was Microsoft's goal. There was truth to the old rumored Microsoft saying that "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm...Microsoft silently installs the Windows Presentation Foundation plugin into Firefox .
Microsoft then makes sure that all users , unless you run Windows 7 which has just been released , ca n't disable or remove it .
Sounds like a sneaky way for Microsoft to get consumers to think that Firefox is no more secure than IE once the WPF plugin has allowed malicious software to be silently installed on consumer computers .
Think about it .
Why on God 's green Earth would MS deliberately make the plugin uninstallable and non-disableable , let alone even allowing it to be installed without the consumer 's permission in the first place ?
Only one reason comes to mind -- to discredit Firefox as being an inherently safer web browser compared to IE.This reminds me of Microsoft 's sneaky tactic where upgrading from IE6 to IE7 deliberately deleted a couple of DLLs which many older Win9X programs need to properly display dialog boxes and buttons .
Microsoft then claimed that those two " missing " DLLs were Vista-only DLLs and that they were never a part of any Microsoft OS prior to Vista .
Those two DLLs have been part of the Windows OS since Windows 98 , yet Microsoft vehemently denied this fact .
Instead Microsoft told consumers that they should upgrade from XP to Vista for better program compatibility .
MS will try anything when sales are flat .
Why not ?
They have gotten away with far worse in the past .
Remember when MS stole the Stacker compression code , byte-for-byte , and used it in their Doublespace compression program ?
All they got was a court order to get rid of the Doublespace code and replace it with their own compression algorithms which MS then called Drivespace .
Yet Stac Electronics was put out of business literally overnight , which of course was Microsoft 's goal .
There was truth to the old rumored Microsoft saying that " DOS is n't done until Lotus wo n't run .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm...Microsoft silently installs the Windows Presentation Foundation plugin into Firefox.
Microsoft then makes sure that all users, unless you run Windows 7 which has just been released, can't disable or remove it.
Sounds like a sneaky way for Microsoft to get consumers to think that Firefox is no more secure than IE once the WPF plugin has allowed malicious software to be silently installed on consumer computers.
Think about it.
Why on God's green Earth would MS deliberately make the plugin uninstallable and non-disableable, let alone even allowing it to be installed without the consumer's permission in the first place?
Only one reason comes to mind -- to discredit Firefox as being an inherently safer web browser compared to IE.This reminds me of Microsoft's sneaky tactic where upgrading from IE6 to IE7 deliberately deleted a couple of DLLs which many older Win9X programs need to properly display dialog boxes and buttons.
Microsoft then claimed that those two "missing" DLLs were Vista-only DLLs and that they were never a part of any Microsoft OS prior to Vista.
Those two DLLs have been part of the Windows OS since Windows 98, yet Microsoft vehemently denied this fact.
Instead Microsoft told consumers that they should upgrade from XP to Vista for better program compatibility.
MS will try anything when sales are flat.
Why not?
They have gotten away with far worse in the past.
Remember when MS stole the Stacker compression code, byte-for-byte, and used it in their Doublespace compression program?
All they got was a court order to get rid of the Doublespace code and replace it with their own compression algorithms which MS then called Drivespace.
Yet Stac Electronics was put out of business literally overnight, which of course was Microsoft's goal.
There was truth to the old rumored Microsoft saying that "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775667</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1255714500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ok, seriously. Why Algol-60?</p></div><p>Because it is one of the three languages that started it all, and one that affected all existing mainstream languages most. Curly braces of C, and the block construct that they represent, began their life as "begin<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. end" in Algol-60.</p><p>Because it is at the same time a very beautiful language - especially considering the time when it was designed - and one with some very advanced constructs, not found even in many modern languages, that can pose significant challenge to implement efficiently, especially in an otherwise constrained environment such as sandboxed CLR. To list a few such features: computed goto, label variables/function arguments and the associated nonlocal goto, arbitrarily nested functions with variable capturing, and call-by-name. Challenges are fun.</p><p>Because it's a very important milestone in history of CompSci in general, and language design in particular (in case it's not quite obvious yet, I'm a language design geek), a piece of it that I wish to preserve. Apparently, I'm not alone in that, either - there's also <a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/marst/" title="gnu.org">GNU Marst</a> [gnu.org] - curiously enough, written by another Russian dude.</p><p>Because Simula-67 (the first OOP language ever, and the ultimate ancestor of virtually every statically typed OO language today, including C++, Java and C#) is a strict superset of Algol-60, and I wanted to go after it next.</p><p>And, of course, just for fun. I mean, this <em>is</em> Slashdot, right? We routinely get people installing KDE2 on NetBSD running on toasters with 7-segment indicators here; I think my little fetish is relatively benign in contrast.</p><p>(To bring the above references to Algol-60 language features into some context for those not familiar with the subject, the final Algol-60 language spec is <a href="http://www.masswerk.at/algol60/modified\_report.htm" title="masswerk.at">here</a> [masswerk.at]; it's a fairly short read.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p> After all everybody her on SlashDot knows that Algol-68 is the most recent version!</p></div><p>Algol-68 is an entirely different language from Algol-60. It's not evolutionary, but a complete, ground-up redesign, by very different people. It's also a very interesting one, and important in its own right, since C borrowed a lot of things from it, down to keywords (VOID, INT, SHORT, LONG, STRUCT and UNION are all Algol-68 keywords with virtually the same meaning they have retained in C).</p><p>It would be fairly interesting thing to implement as well, but in many ways it's a much more rationally designed language than Algol-60, dropping some overly exotic and complicated features, and, consequently, implementing it is less of a challenge (I guess they had had enough real-world experience writing compilers by then to conclude that some features of Algol-60 looked good on paper only...).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , seriously .
Why Algol-60 ? Because it is one of the three languages that started it all , and one that affected all existing mainstream languages most .
Curly braces of C , and the block construct that they represent , began their life as " begin .. end " in Algol-60.Because it is at the same time a very beautiful language - especially considering the time when it was designed - and one with some very advanced constructs , not found even in many modern languages , that can pose significant challenge to implement efficiently , especially in an otherwise constrained environment such as sandboxed CLR .
To list a few such features : computed goto , label variables/function arguments and the associated nonlocal goto , arbitrarily nested functions with variable capturing , and call-by-name .
Challenges are fun.Because it 's a very important milestone in history of CompSci in general , and language design in particular ( in case it 's not quite obvious yet , I 'm a language design geek ) , a piece of it that I wish to preserve .
Apparently , I 'm not alone in that , either - there 's also GNU Marst [ gnu.org ] - curiously enough , written by another Russian dude.Because Simula-67 ( the first OOP language ever , and the ultimate ancestor of virtually every statically typed OO language today , including C + + , Java and C # ) is a strict superset of Algol-60 , and I wanted to go after it next.And , of course , just for fun .
I mean , this is Slashdot , right ?
We routinely get people installing KDE2 on NetBSD running on toasters with 7-segment indicators here ; I think my little fetish is relatively benign in contrast .
( To bring the above references to Algol-60 language features into some context for those not familiar with the subject , the final Algol-60 language spec is here [ masswerk.at ] ; it 's a fairly short read .
) After all everybody her on SlashDot knows that Algol-68 is the most recent version ! Algol-68 is an entirely different language from Algol-60 .
It 's not evolutionary , but a complete , ground-up redesign , by very different people .
It 's also a very interesting one , and important in its own right , since C borrowed a lot of things from it , down to keywords ( VOID , INT , SHORT , LONG , STRUCT and UNION are all Algol-68 keywords with virtually the same meaning they have retained in C ) .It would be fairly interesting thing to implement as well , but in many ways it 's a much more rationally designed language than Algol-60 , dropping some overly exotic and complicated features , and , consequently , implementing it is less of a challenge ( I guess they had had enough real-world experience writing compilers by then to conclude that some features of Algol-60 looked good on paper only... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, seriously.
Why Algol-60?Because it is one of the three languages that started it all, and one that affected all existing mainstream languages most.
Curly braces of C, and the block construct that they represent, began their life as "begin .. end" in Algol-60.Because it is at the same time a very beautiful language - especially considering the time when it was designed - and one with some very advanced constructs, not found even in many modern languages, that can pose significant challenge to implement efficiently, especially in an otherwise constrained environment such as sandboxed CLR.
To list a few such features: computed goto, label variables/function arguments and the associated nonlocal goto, arbitrarily nested functions with variable capturing, and call-by-name.
Challenges are fun.Because it's a very important milestone in history of CompSci in general, and language design in particular (in case it's not quite obvious yet, I'm a language design geek), a piece of it that I wish to preserve.
Apparently, I'm not alone in that, either - there's also GNU Marst [gnu.org] - curiously enough, written by another Russian dude.Because Simula-67 (the first OOP language ever, and the ultimate ancestor of virtually every statically typed OO language today, including C++, Java and C#) is a strict superset of Algol-60, and I wanted to go after it next.And, of course, just for fun.
I mean, this is Slashdot, right?
We routinely get people installing KDE2 on NetBSD running on toasters with 7-segment indicators here; I think my little fetish is relatively benign in contrast.
(To bring the above references to Algol-60 language features into some context for those not familiar with the subject, the final Algol-60 language spec is here [masswerk.at]; it's a fairly short read.
) After all everybody her on SlashDot knows that Algol-68 is the most recent version!Algol-68 is an entirely different language from Algol-60.
It's not evolutionary, but a complete, ground-up redesign, by very different people.
It's also a very interesting one, and important in its own right, since C borrowed a lot of things from it, down to keywords (VOID, INT, SHORT, LONG, STRUCT and UNION are all Algol-68 keywords with virtually the same meaning they have retained in C).It would be fairly interesting thing to implement as well, but in many ways it's a much more rationally designed language than Algol-60, dropping some overly exotic and complicated features, and, consequently, implementing it is less of a challenge (I guess they had had enough real-world experience writing compilers by then to conclude that some features of Algol-60 looked good on paper only...).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776321</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ouch, you just brought back a painful repressed memory of something that has been a tragic disappointment in UNIX for decades.  Yes, as you mention, you CAN THEORETICALLY put UNIX text config files in version control easily enough.  So, here we are 30 years later, and, hmm, THERE AREN'T ANY DONE THAT WAY BY DESIGN/DEFAULT!  In fact I remember way back when investing some considerable time on old FreeBSD/Solaris boxes starting to put many of the system configuration files under SCCS or RCS so that I could diff my edits and look at change logs and revert changes easily and all that. My efforts became frustrated just due to the frequency with which my configurations would conflict with or be obviated by new versions of files or the OS coming from upstream creating a whole new round of merges, checkins, et. al. mostly unnecessarily (if it had been supported by the distribution itself).</p><p>In fact in a lot of cases doing it the 'simple way' wouldn't work at all due to the horribly unhelpful design of a lot of the scripts themselves which INSIST that *anything* in a certain config directory MUST be itself a configuration file.  Not an emacs backup file.  Not a version control subdirectory.  Not a version control file.  Not a vc lock file.  Etc.  So basically doing anything that generates another sort of file/directory under, say,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/cron, or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/init.d,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/sysconfig,  whatever is probably unsafe since the "find..blah.. -type f<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... | grep<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. blah" or whatever logic in the scripts will pick up your unrelated files via some kind of wildcard expression and cause havoc.  It isn't even safe to have a BACKUP file of say ifcfg.eth0 called something like ifcfg.eth0.000 or whatever for these reasons.  In some directories you MIGHT get away with having a "hidden" ".backups" subdirectory that doesn't mess things up by getting globbed in with a pattern/file search, but forget about SCCS or whatever.</p><p>I really can't understand why UNIX distributions that live by version control are SO unfriendly to USING version control for their own config files, or, for that matter, programs themselves.  Yes, RPM/APT/Yast/YUM is OK, but typically it still doesn't act as any kind of useful VC system for packages.  If I have spare disc space, why not make it quickly possible to roll back an entire set of package updates according to a certain date or whatever if I haven't purged the history of old versions?  It is odd that they invent all these new package version management systems and yet ignore many basic principles of the VC roots of it all.</p><p>It is also ridiculously hard to export any useful metadata about the sysadmin 'state' of a given UNIX box.  If, say, you've installed the default "workstation" distribution of the OS, but you've added in the non-default packages emacs, gcc, wget, and you've made a custom hosts, hostname, domainname, smb.conf, resolv.conf set of files, would it be THAT hard to have an automated medatata database that tracked your preferred customizations and exported them (possibly VCed and otherwise tagged) so you could use those templates as a default to install another system or an updated major OS version of the same system in the future?  Yes you can write scripts to look at what packages are installed and install a list of packages from a script, but typically that commingles hundreds of things that are just dependencies you don't directly care about with some of the core packages you do -- e.g. I ALWAYS want emacs, wget, and 40 other packages on whatever workstation I install, whatever the latest versions of those are.</p><p>UNIX can be very sysadmin unfriendly with how little facility it provides "by default" for such VC and use of metadata about sysadmin settings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ouch , you just brought back a painful repressed memory of something that has been a tragic disappointment in UNIX for decades .
Yes , as you mention , you CAN THEORETICALLY put UNIX text config files in version control easily enough .
So , here we are 30 years later , and , hmm , THERE ARE N'T ANY DONE THAT WAY BY DESIGN/DEFAULT !
In fact I remember way back when investing some considerable time on old FreeBSD/Solaris boxes starting to put many of the system configuration files under SCCS or RCS so that I could diff my edits and look at change logs and revert changes easily and all that .
My efforts became frustrated just due to the frequency with which my configurations would conflict with or be obviated by new versions of files or the OS coming from upstream creating a whole new round of merges , checkins , et .
al. mostly unnecessarily ( if it had been supported by the distribution itself ) .In fact in a lot of cases doing it the 'simple way ' would n't work at all due to the horribly unhelpful design of a lot of the scripts themselves which INSIST that * anything * in a certain config directory MUST be itself a configuration file .
Not an emacs backup file .
Not a version control subdirectory .
Not a version control file .
Not a vc lock file .
Etc. So basically doing anything that generates another sort of file/directory under , say , /etc/cron , or /etc/init.d , /etc/sysconfig , whatever is probably unsafe since the " find..blah.. -type f ... | grep .. blah " or whatever logic in the scripts will pick up your unrelated files via some kind of wildcard expression and cause havoc .
It is n't even safe to have a BACKUP file of say ifcfg.eth0 called something like ifcfg.eth0.000 or whatever for these reasons .
In some directories you MIGHT get away with having a " hidden " " .backups " subdirectory that does n't mess things up by getting globbed in with a pattern/file search , but forget about SCCS or whatever.I really ca n't understand why UNIX distributions that live by version control are SO unfriendly to USING version control for their own config files , or , for that matter , programs themselves .
Yes , RPM/APT/Yast/YUM is OK , but typically it still does n't act as any kind of useful VC system for packages .
If I have spare disc space , why not make it quickly possible to roll back an entire set of package updates according to a certain date or whatever if I have n't purged the history of old versions ?
It is odd that they invent all these new package version management systems and yet ignore many basic principles of the VC roots of it all.It is also ridiculously hard to export any useful metadata about the sysadmin 'state ' of a given UNIX box .
If , say , you 've installed the default " workstation " distribution of the OS , but you 've added in the non-default packages emacs , gcc , wget , and you 've made a custom hosts , hostname , domainname , smb.conf , resolv.conf set of files , would it be THAT hard to have an automated medatata database that tracked your preferred customizations and exported them ( possibly VCed and otherwise tagged ) so you could use those templates as a default to install another system or an updated major OS version of the same system in the future ?
Yes you can write scripts to look at what packages are installed and install a list of packages from a script , but typically that commingles hundreds of things that are just dependencies you do n't directly care about with some of the core packages you do -- e.g .
I ALWAYS want emacs , wget , and 40 other packages on whatever workstation I install , whatever the latest versions of those are.UNIX can be very sysadmin unfriendly with how little facility it provides " by default " for such VC and use of metadata about sysadmin settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ouch, you just brought back a painful repressed memory of something that has been a tragic disappointment in UNIX for decades.
Yes, as you mention, you CAN THEORETICALLY put UNIX text config files in version control easily enough.
So, here we are 30 years later, and, hmm, THERE AREN'T ANY DONE THAT WAY BY DESIGN/DEFAULT!
In fact I remember way back when investing some considerable time on old FreeBSD/Solaris boxes starting to put many of the system configuration files under SCCS or RCS so that I could diff my edits and look at change logs and revert changes easily and all that.
My efforts became frustrated just due to the frequency with which my configurations would conflict with or be obviated by new versions of files or the OS coming from upstream creating a whole new round of merges, checkins, et.
al. mostly unnecessarily (if it had been supported by the distribution itself).In fact in a lot of cases doing it the 'simple way' wouldn't work at all due to the horribly unhelpful design of a lot of the scripts themselves which INSIST that *anything* in a certain config directory MUST be itself a configuration file.
Not an emacs backup file.
Not a version control subdirectory.
Not a version control file.
Not a vc lock file.
Etc.  So basically doing anything that generates another sort of file/directory under, say, /etc/cron, or /etc/init.d, /etc/sysconfig,  whatever is probably unsafe since the "find..blah.. -type f ... | grep .. blah" or whatever logic in the scripts will pick up your unrelated files via some kind of wildcard expression and cause havoc.
It isn't even safe to have a BACKUP file of say ifcfg.eth0 called something like ifcfg.eth0.000 or whatever for these reasons.
In some directories you MIGHT get away with having a "hidden" ".backups" subdirectory that doesn't mess things up by getting globbed in with a pattern/file search, but forget about SCCS or whatever.I really can't understand why UNIX distributions that live by version control are SO unfriendly to USING version control for their own config files, or, for that matter, programs themselves.
Yes, RPM/APT/Yast/YUM is OK, but typically it still doesn't act as any kind of useful VC system for packages.
If I have spare disc space, why not make it quickly possible to roll back an entire set of package updates according to a certain date or whatever if I haven't purged the history of old versions?
It is odd that they invent all these new package version management systems and yet ignore many basic principles of the VC roots of it all.It is also ridiculously hard to export any useful metadata about the sysadmin 'state' of a given UNIX box.
If, say, you've installed the default "workstation" distribution of the OS, but you've added in the non-default packages emacs, gcc, wget, and you've made a custom hosts, hostname, domainname, smb.conf, resolv.conf set of files, would it be THAT hard to have an automated medatata database that tracked your preferred customizations and exported them (possibly VCed and otherwise tagged) so you could use those templates as a default to install another system or an updated major OS version of the same system in the future?
Yes you can write scripts to look at what packages are installed and install a list of packages from a script, but typically that commingles hundreds of things that are just dependencies you don't directly care about with some of the core packages you do -- e.g.
I ALWAYS want emacs, wget, and 40 other packages on whatever workstation I install, whatever the latest versions of those are.UNIX can be very sysadmin unfriendly with how little facility it provides "by default" for such VC and use of metadata about sysadmin settings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773367</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't the title read</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1255689900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Microsoft fixes vulnerability in their own Firefox Addon"? The summary would then point out that this was covered and Microsoft fixed the problem. But I guess calling Microsoft "sneaky," ignoring the fact that this was already posted on slashdot, and then minimizing the fact that MS actually fixed the problem was too appealing to pass up.</p></div><p>In a way it is sneaky.  If I used Firefox in Windows and wanted this plugin, I would install it myself.  Anyone using Firefox in Windows is already demonstrating that they are aware that they have choices as to what browser software to use, and I strongly doubt that the average Firefox user has never heard of addons.mozilla.com or otherwise doesn't know how to locate and install desired add-ons/plugins on their own.
<br> <br>
The case can be made for automagically installing things for the "blue E is the Internet!" crowd as they are rather averse to any involvement in this sort of decision-making, viewing it as an unwanted burden.  Yet even then, it's non-ideal.  The honest, non-sneaky way to handle this would be to separate it from the core<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET package.  Then either remove it from Windows Update completely and offer it as a voluntary download, or, make it a separate line-item update that can be declined.
<br> <br>
Just assuming that you must want this non-essential thing and making that assumption without considering security implications, all in the name of increasing marketshare, is what's sneaky or exploitative.  People who use automatic Windows Updates do so because they rely on it to keep their systems patched and secure.  When they are not technically inclined, they are something of a captive audience in this scenario.
<br> <br>
You know, when the big virulent worms like Sasser and Code Red came out, they attacked vulnerabilities for which patches had already been issued.  I used to wonder why so many people didn't keep their machines more up-to-date when an automatic mechanism is provided that will do it for them.  Every time I see something like this, I begin to understand why.  It's in everyone's interest to lessen the number of vulnerable machines on the network.  Another reason to distrust a mechanism that could have prevented many of these infections does not further that interest.  If Microsoft were really serious about security, they would minimize this effect by separating Windows Update into two categories:  "Bugfixes &amp; Security Patches", and an optional "New Features".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft fixes vulnerability in their own Firefox Addon " ?
The summary would then point out that this was covered and Microsoft fixed the problem .
But I guess calling Microsoft " sneaky , " ignoring the fact that this was already posted on slashdot , and then minimizing the fact that MS actually fixed the problem was too appealing to pass up.In a way it is sneaky .
If I used Firefox in Windows and wanted this plugin , I would install it myself .
Anyone using Firefox in Windows is already demonstrating that they are aware that they have choices as to what browser software to use , and I strongly doubt that the average Firefox user has never heard of addons.mozilla.com or otherwise does n't know how to locate and install desired add-ons/plugins on their own .
The case can be made for automagically installing things for the " blue E is the Internet !
" crowd as they are rather averse to any involvement in this sort of decision-making , viewing it as an unwanted burden .
Yet even then , it 's non-ideal .
The honest , non-sneaky way to handle this would be to separate it from the core .NET package .
Then either remove it from Windows Update completely and offer it as a voluntary download , or , make it a separate line-item update that can be declined .
Just assuming that you must want this non-essential thing and making that assumption without considering security implications , all in the name of increasing marketshare , is what 's sneaky or exploitative .
People who use automatic Windows Updates do so because they rely on it to keep their systems patched and secure .
When they are not technically inclined , they are something of a captive audience in this scenario .
You know , when the big virulent worms like Sasser and Code Red came out , they attacked vulnerabilities for which patches had already been issued .
I used to wonder why so many people did n't keep their machines more up-to-date when an automatic mechanism is provided that will do it for them .
Every time I see something like this , I begin to understand why .
It 's in everyone 's interest to lessen the number of vulnerable machines on the network .
Another reason to distrust a mechanism that could have prevented many of these infections does not further that interest .
If Microsoft were really serious about security , they would minimize this effect by separating Windows Update into two categories : " Bugfixes &amp; Security Patches " , and an optional " New Features " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft fixes vulnerability in their own Firefox Addon"?
The summary would then point out that this was covered and Microsoft fixed the problem.
But I guess calling Microsoft "sneaky," ignoring the fact that this was already posted on slashdot, and then minimizing the fact that MS actually fixed the problem was too appealing to pass up.In a way it is sneaky.
If I used Firefox in Windows and wanted this plugin, I would install it myself.
Anyone using Firefox in Windows is already demonstrating that they are aware that they have choices as to what browser software to use, and I strongly doubt that the average Firefox user has never heard of addons.mozilla.com or otherwise doesn't know how to locate and install desired add-ons/plugins on their own.
The case can be made for automagically installing things for the "blue E is the Internet!
" crowd as they are rather averse to any involvement in this sort of decision-making, viewing it as an unwanted burden.
Yet even then, it's non-ideal.
The honest, non-sneaky way to handle this would be to separate it from the core .NET package.
Then either remove it from Windows Update completely and offer it as a voluntary download, or, make it a separate line-item update that can be declined.
Just assuming that you must want this non-essential thing and making that assumption without considering security implications, all in the name of increasing marketshare, is what's sneaky or exploitative.
People who use automatic Windows Updates do so because they rely on it to keep their systems patched and secure.
When they are not technically inclined, they are something of a captive audience in this scenario.
You know, when the big virulent worms like Sasser and Code Red came out, they attacked vulnerabilities for which patches had already been issued.
I used to wonder why so many people didn't keep their machines more up-to-date when an automatic mechanism is provided that will do it for them.
Every time I see something like this, I begin to understand why.
It's in everyone's interest to lessen the number of vulnerable machines on the network.
Another reason to distrust a mechanism that could have prevented many of these infections does not further that interest.
If Microsoft were really serious about security, they would minimize this effect by separating Windows Update into two categories:  "Bugfixes &amp; Security Patches", and an optional "New Features".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776209</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox is now blocking the extension</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1255812720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not exactly a squabble.  MS green-lighted the addon being blocked.  See <a href="http://shaver.off.net/diary/2009/10/16/net-framework-assistant-blocked-to-disarm-security-vulnerability/" title="off.net">http://shaver.off.net/diary/2009/10/16/net-framework-assistant-blocked-to-disarm-security-vulnerability/</a> [off.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not exactly a squabble .
MS green-lighted the addon being blocked .
See http : //shaver.off.net/diary/2009/10/16/net-framework-assistant-blocked-to-disarm-security-vulnerability/ [ off.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not exactly a squabble.
MS green-lighted the addon being blocked.
See http://shaver.off.net/diary/2009/10/16/net-framework-assistant-blocked-to-disarm-security-vulnerability/ [off.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773265</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255689180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anything, this case further reinforces that claim. Any new functionality (including plugins) added to a browser increases its attack surface, unless it completely replaces part of the existing code. In this case, the increased surface was due to WPF being exposed. In case of Chrome plugin, it's Chrome rendering engine.</p><p>If Chrome completely replaced IE renderer, with no means to re-activate it, then it would be reasonable to argue that it does improve security. However, Chrome renderer is opt-in, which means that any attack site willing to exploit an IE vulnerability will happily work in IE with Chrome plugin installed, but at the same time any site willing to exploit a Chrome vulnerability - and it's not like there aren't, or will never be, any - can request IE with Chrome plugin to use Chrome for rendering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything , this case further reinforces that claim .
Any new functionality ( including plugins ) added to a browser increases its attack surface , unless it completely replaces part of the existing code .
In this case , the increased surface was due to WPF being exposed .
In case of Chrome plugin , it 's Chrome rendering engine.If Chrome completely replaced IE renderer , with no means to re-activate it , then it would be reasonable to argue that it does improve security .
However , Chrome renderer is opt-in , which means that any attack site willing to exploit an IE vulnerability will happily work in IE with Chrome plugin installed , but at the same time any site willing to exploit a Chrome vulnerability - and it 's not like there are n't , or will never be , any - can request IE with Chrome plugin to use Chrome for rendering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anything, this case further reinforces that claim.
Any new functionality (including plugins) added to a browser increases its attack surface, unless it completely replaces part of the existing code.
In this case, the increased surface was due to WPF being exposed.
In case of Chrome plugin, it's Chrome rendering engine.If Chrome completely replaced IE renderer, with no means to re-activate it, then it would be reasonable to argue that it does improve security.
However, Chrome renderer is opt-in, which means that any attack site willing to exploit an IE vulnerability will happily work in IE with Chrome plugin installed, but at the same time any site willing to exploit a Chrome vulnerability - and it's not like there aren't, or will never be, any - can request IE with Chrome plugin to use Chrome for rendering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774427</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>zach297</author>
	<datestamp>1255697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because people that use Firefox probably have heard about this patch and realize it is Microsoft's doing, thereby shifting the blame correctly to Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because people that use Firefox probably have heard about this patch and realize it is Microsoft 's doing , thereby shifting the blame correctly to Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because people that use Firefox probably have heard about this patch and realize it is Microsoft's doing, thereby shifting the blame correctly to Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774313</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Firefox allow this?</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1255696740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the user allows Microsoft to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the user allows Microsoft to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the user allows Microsoft to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773079</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255688040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That pretty much was what they aimed to achieve.<br>Dent the apparent security of your competitors.</p><p>Usual FUD attacks really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That pretty much was what they aimed to achieve.Dent the apparent security of your competitors.Usual FUD attacks really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That pretty much was what they aimed to achieve.Dent the apparent security of your competitors.Usual FUD attacks really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772697</id>
	<title>I don't get it - why use Windows?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux works so much better than Windows.  Windows is like some defective toy operating system.  Anybody who has switched is well aware of this.</p><p>This isn't a troll.  I'm just seriously curious why anybody uses Windows, when such a better alternative is available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux works so much better than Windows .
Windows is like some defective toy operating system .
Anybody who has switched is well aware of this.This is n't a troll .
I 'm just seriously curious why anybody uses Windows , when such a better alternative is available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux works so much better than Windows.
Windows is like some defective toy operating system.
Anybody who has switched is well aware of this.This isn't a troll.
I'm just seriously curious why anybody uses Windows, when such a better alternative is available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775521</id>
	<title>Firefox is now blocking the extension</title>
	<author>tomk</author>
	<datestamp>1255712160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know how to re-enable it?</p><p>Unlike some here, I actually find the extension valuable and wish to have it active.  I am quite annoyed that Firefox decided to block it without giving me any choice in the matter.</p><p>BTW I understand that my own frustration at having this blocked without consent is similar to the frustration of those who wish not to have the extension but had it given to them without consent.  That does not excuse either party.  As a user I am now bearing the brunt of this petty squabble between MS and FF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know how to re-enable it ? Unlike some here , I actually find the extension valuable and wish to have it active .
I am quite annoyed that Firefox decided to block it without giving me any choice in the matter.BTW I understand that my own frustration at having this blocked without consent is similar to the frustration of those who wish not to have the extension but had it given to them without consent .
That does not excuse either party .
As a user I am now bearing the brunt of this petty squabble between MS and FF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know how to re-enable it?Unlike some here, I actually find the extension valuable and wish to have it active.
I am quite annoyed that Firefox decided to block it without giving me any choice in the matter.BTW I understand that my own frustration at having this blocked without consent is similar to the frustration of those who wish not to have the extension but had it given to them without consent.
That does not excuse either party.
As a user I am now bearing the brunt of this petty squabble between MS and FF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773269</id>
	<title>Re:What? Shouldn't firefox fix this one?</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1255689180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So firefox allows a rogue addon to install without any user intervention and the story is all about how evil MSFT is?</p><p>Sure, they did it.  Bad Microsoft.</p><p>But isn't the bigger issue that now that this is known....*anyone* can pull this on firefox users?</p><p>No.  I am not apologizing for Microsoft.  This was "Sony Stupid" of them.  We're used to that here, though.  What we're not used to (and apparently sweeping under the rug) is the massive, unholy hell of a mess mozilla's extension system for firefox is....</p></div><p>Anyone that can run executable code on your system can do anything to your system.  The "good guys" aren't supposed to do things to your system without asking you first. The "bad guys" can simply replace Firefox entirely with a version that has what ever features they want. If you let someone run code on your system, you lose. Firefox cannot stop that code from doing what ever it wants.

The point is that you're supposed to only install software from vendors you trust. You should be able to trust Microsoft and that your trust was abused and abused in a way that caused you to be vulnerable to remote exploits is the story here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So firefox allows a rogue addon to install without any user intervention and the story is all about how evil MSFT is ? Sure , they did it .
Bad Microsoft.But is n't the bigger issue that now that this is known.... * anyone * can pull this on firefox users ? No .
I am not apologizing for Microsoft .
This was " Sony Stupid " of them .
We 're used to that here , though .
What we 're not used to ( and apparently sweeping under the rug ) is the massive , unholy hell of a mess mozilla 's extension system for firefox is....Anyone that can run executable code on your system can do anything to your system .
The " good guys " are n't supposed to do things to your system without asking you first .
The " bad guys " can simply replace Firefox entirely with a version that has what ever features they want .
If you let someone run code on your system , you lose .
Firefox can not stop that code from doing what ever it wants .
The point is that you 're supposed to only install software from vendors you trust .
You should be able to trust Microsoft and that your trust was abused and abused in a way that caused you to be vulnerable to remote exploits is the story here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So firefox allows a rogue addon to install without any user intervention and the story is all about how evil MSFT is?Sure, they did it.
Bad Microsoft.But isn't the bigger issue that now that this is known....*anyone* can pull this on firefox users?No.
I am not apologizing for Microsoft.
This was "Sony Stupid" of them.
We're used to that here, though.
What we're not used to (and apparently sweeping under the rug) is the massive, unholy hell of a mess mozilla's extension system for firefox is....Anyone that can run executable code on your system can do anything to your system.
The "good guys" aren't supposed to do things to your system without asking you first.
The "bad guys" can simply replace Firefox entirely with a version that has what ever features they want.
If you let someone run code on your system, you lose.
Firefox cannot stop that code from doing what ever it wants.
The point is that you're supposed to only install software from vendors you trust.
You should be able to trust Microsoft and that your trust was abused and abused in a way that caused you to be vulnerable to remote exploits is the story here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775971</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't read the fta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255721280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>your infected what?</htmltext>
<tokenext>your infected what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your infected what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772641</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Captain Spam</author>
	<datestamp>1255685460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really, not when it's due to a plugin they themselves installed and have their name all over.  I mean, you don't consider Flash vulnerabilities to be the fault of IE or Firefox, do you?  If anything (and that's a big "if" in this case), it'll be a black eye for Microsoft.</p><p>Nah, if you're going the paranoid route, it'd have been a better idea if they made this plugin under the guise of a shell company or something, then when the vulnerabilities hit the fan, have the shell complain about how "hard" it is to make a secure plugin for the "obviously inferior" Firefox, then have Microsoft suddenly pipe up about how much more secure the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET plugin is under IE.  Bonus points if the shell claims to be open-source with their reimplementation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET so Microsoft can attempt to discredit open-source software, too!</p><p>But we're not THAT paranoid.  Are we?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , not when it 's due to a plugin they themselves installed and have their name all over .
I mean , you do n't consider Flash vulnerabilities to be the fault of IE or Firefox , do you ?
If anything ( and that 's a big " if " in this case ) , it 'll be a black eye for Microsoft.Nah , if you 're going the paranoid route , it 'd have been a better idea if they made this plugin under the guise of a shell company or something , then when the vulnerabilities hit the fan , have the shell complain about how " hard " it is to make a secure plugin for the " obviously inferior " Firefox , then have Microsoft suddenly pipe up about how much more secure the .NET plugin is under IE .
Bonus points if the shell claims to be open-source with their reimplementation of .NET so Microsoft can attempt to discredit open-source software , too ! But we 're not THAT paranoid .
Are we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, not when it's due to a plugin they themselves installed and have their name all over.
I mean, you don't consider Flash vulnerabilities to be the fault of IE or Firefox, do you?
If anything (and that's a big "if" in this case), it'll be a black eye for Microsoft.Nah, if you're going the paranoid route, it'd have been a better idea if they made this plugin under the guise of a shell company or something, then when the vulnerabilities hit the fan, have the shell complain about how "hard" it is to make a secure plugin for the "obviously inferior" Firefox, then have Microsoft suddenly pipe up about how much more secure the .NET plugin is under IE.
Bonus points if the shell claims to be open-source with their reimplementation of .NET so Microsoft can attempt to discredit open-source software, too!But we're not THAT paranoid.
Are we?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773181</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1255688760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.</p></div><p>I'm the one who found and reported one of the vulnerabilities (<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-061.mspx" title="microsoft.com">CVE-2009-0090</a> [microsoft.com]) in this batch that affects Firefox, and I strongly doubt that it was in any way intentional - the vulnerability itself is a fairly obscure corner case in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET bytecode validator/verifier, and, so far as I can tell, it has been there for a very long time, seemingly before WPF was even released. All in all, it looks like a genuine bug.</p><p>A testament to its obscurity is the way I encountered it - I was designing an Algol-60 compiler targetting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, and was looking for an efficient way to pass Algol function-type function arguments (which are effectively vararg on the caller side) without having to lift outer locals used by captured functions to heap. Only after coming up with an efficient design and testing that it works, I realized the implications of what I had just done to the verifier.</p><p>I cannot comment on CVE-2009-2529 (the second Firefox-affecting vulnerability), but I don't see how it would be any different. Really, the idea of MS deliberately adding vulnerabilities to its products in hope of marginally affecting Firefox by them (remember that IE is hit much worse...) is pretty absurd - even if you disregard the notion of business reputation when it comes to MS, it poses a very high legal liability. No-one in a sane mind would even contemplate doing such a thing.</p><p>Disclaimer: I do work for Microsoft at present, though not on the affected products. I did not work for Microsoft when I discovered and reported that vulnerability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's a little paranoid , but... Does n't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities ?
I mean , IE is n't doing so well right now , and this could discredit Firefox a little.I 'm the one who found and reported one of the vulnerabilities ( CVE-2009-0090 [ microsoft.com ] ) in this batch that affects Firefox , and I strongly doubt that it was in any way intentional - the vulnerability itself is a fairly obscure corner case in .NET bytecode validator/verifier , and , so far as I can tell , it has been there for a very long time , seemingly before WPF was even released .
All in all , it looks like a genuine bug.A testament to its obscurity is the way I encountered it - I was designing an Algol-60 compiler targetting .NET , and was looking for an efficient way to pass Algol function-type function arguments ( which are effectively vararg on the caller side ) without having to lift outer locals used by captured functions to heap .
Only after coming up with an efficient design and testing that it works , I realized the implications of what I had just done to the verifier.I can not comment on CVE-2009-2529 ( the second Firefox-affecting vulnerability ) , but I do n't see how it would be any different .
Really , the idea of MS deliberately adding vulnerabilities to its products in hope of marginally affecting Firefox by them ( remember that IE is hit much worse... ) is pretty absurd - even if you disregard the notion of business reputation when it comes to MS , it poses a very high legal liability .
No-one in a sane mind would even contemplate doing such a thing.Disclaimer : I do work for Microsoft at present , though not on the affected products .
I did not work for Microsoft when I discovered and reported that vulnerability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities?
I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.I'm the one who found and reported one of the vulnerabilities (CVE-2009-0090 [microsoft.com]) in this batch that affects Firefox, and I strongly doubt that it was in any way intentional - the vulnerability itself is a fairly obscure corner case in .NET bytecode validator/verifier, and, so far as I can tell, it has been there for a very long time, seemingly before WPF was even released.
All in all, it looks like a genuine bug.A testament to its obscurity is the way I encountered it - I was designing an Algol-60 compiler targetting .NET, and was looking for an efficient way to pass Algol function-type function arguments (which are effectively vararg on the caller side) without having to lift outer locals used by captured functions to heap.
Only after coming up with an efficient design and testing that it works, I realized the implications of what I had just done to the verifier.I cannot comment on CVE-2009-2529 (the second Firefox-affecting vulnerability), but I don't see how it would be any different.
Really, the idea of MS deliberately adding vulnerabilities to its products in hope of marginally affecting Firefox by them (remember that IE is hit much worse...) is pretty absurd - even if you disregard the notion of business reputation when it comes to MS, it poses a very high legal liability.
No-one in a sane mind would even contemplate doing such a thing.Disclaimer: I do work for Microsoft at present, though not on the affected products.
I did not work for Microsoft when I discovered and reported that vulnerability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773363</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Vancorps</author>
	<datestamp>1255689900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually no, when you reboot you still have previous backups. Windows keeps several registry backups in several files so you can always restore whatever is broken. This is the Windows XP or greater area of course. That is of course on top of system restore which can retain many backups by default depending on how much installing and uninstalling you are doing. </p><p>Registry hacks are not friendly for regular folk which is why it is so discouraged and is the same reason that editing text files is considered unfriendly. Modifying fstab is far from friendly especially if you are new to the world. Yeah it gets easy when you realize everything is a file and certain consistencies expose themselves but for the new people it is highly inaccessible exactly like the registry. The only difference is that Microsoft does all it can to prevent you from having to go in and manually edit anything. This is why a patch was created enabling the disable and uninstall functions. </p><p>You're right that the registry is a great place to high malware as much of it is not very well documented. I can't imagine why any application developer would want to use it. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually no , when you reboot you still have previous backups .
Windows keeps several registry backups in several files so you can always restore whatever is broken .
This is the Windows XP or greater area of course .
That is of course on top of system restore which can retain many backups by default depending on how much installing and uninstalling you are doing .
Registry hacks are not friendly for regular folk which is why it is so discouraged and is the same reason that editing text files is considered unfriendly .
Modifying fstab is far from friendly especially if you are new to the world .
Yeah it gets easy when you realize everything is a file and certain consistencies expose themselves but for the new people it is highly inaccessible exactly like the registry .
The only difference is that Microsoft does all it can to prevent you from having to go in and manually edit anything .
This is why a patch was created enabling the disable and uninstall functions .
You 're right that the registry is a great place to high malware as much of it is not very well documented .
I ca n't imagine why any application developer would want to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually no, when you reboot you still have previous backups.
Windows keeps several registry backups in several files so you can always restore whatever is broken.
This is the Windows XP or greater area of course.
That is of course on top of system restore which can retain many backups by default depending on how much installing and uninstalling you are doing.
Registry hacks are not friendly for regular folk which is why it is so discouraged and is the same reason that editing text files is considered unfriendly.
Modifying fstab is far from friendly especially if you are new to the world.
Yeah it gets easy when you realize everything is a file and certain consistencies expose themselves but for the new people it is highly inaccessible exactly like the registry.
The only difference is that Microsoft does all it can to prevent you from having to go in and manually edit anything.
This is why a patch was created enabling the disable and uninstall functions.
You're right that the registry is a great place to high malware as much of it is not very well documented.
I can't imagine why any application developer would want to use it. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772809</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255686420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but let's stick to facts.</p></div><p>You don't belong here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but let 's stick to facts.You do n't belong here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but let's stick to facts.You don't belong here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772759</id>
	<title>Sony's rootkit trick lighty modified?</title>
	<author>Kbac</author>
	<datestamp>1255686120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This kinda reminds my of Sony's rootkits from music CDs a little. If I remember correctly installing programs without user permission/knowledge is bad, doing so and making it as imposable to remove or disable as possible is really bad. And the fact that Windows 7 is the only OS that has the option to disable it seems like MS is once again trying to force users to upgrade. "We know 7 is safer than XP because we booby trapped XP!".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This kinda reminds my of Sony 's rootkits from music CDs a little .
If I remember correctly installing programs without user permission/knowledge is bad , doing so and making it as imposable to remove or disable as possible is really bad .
And the fact that Windows 7 is the only OS that has the option to disable it seems like MS is once again trying to force users to upgrade .
" We know 7 is safer than XP because we booby trapped XP !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kinda reminds my of Sony's rootkits from music CDs a little.
If I remember correctly installing programs without user permission/knowledge is bad, doing so and making it as imposable to remove or disable as possible is really bad.
And the fact that Windows 7 is the only OS that has the option to disable it seems like MS is once again trying to force users to upgrade.
"We know 7 is safer than XP because we booby trapped XP!
".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772721</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if it is regular incompetence, there will be people at Microsoft who will be delighted the add-on has the advantage of discrediting Firefox, and will be considering how best to use it. That's just the nature of any large corporation. Corporations don't blush. They maximize opportunity.</p><p>Whether initial malicious intent existed or not is pretty academic now, and likely unprovable in any case. What matters is the lever is inserted, and Microsoft will definitely be considering how much weight to put on it.</p><p>(And it doesn't mean you're not paranoid if they are out to get you.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if it is regular incompetence , there will be people at Microsoft who will be delighted the add-on has the advantage of discrediting Firefox , and will be considering how best to use it .
That 's just the nature of any large corporation .
Corporations do n't blush .
They maximize opportunity.Whether initial malicious intent existed or not is pretty academic now , and likely unprovable in any case .
What matters is the lever is inserted , and Microsoft will definitely be considering how much weight to put on it .
( And it does n't mean you 're not paranoid if they are out to get you .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if it is regular incompetence, there will be people at Microsoft who will be delighted the add-on has the advantage of discrediting Firefox, and will be considering how best to use it.
That's just the nature of any large corporation.
Corporations don't blush.
They maximize opportunity.Whether initial malicious intent existed or not is pretty academic now, and likely unprovable in any case.
What matters is the lever is inserted, and Microsoft will definitely be considering how much weight to put on it.
(And it doesn't mean you're not paranoid if they are out to get you.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774557</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255699140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The registry makes a great place to hide stuff in (see also half the malware to come down the pike in the past 9 years)"</p><p>I'm not aware of any OS config system that doesn't have this trait so it's hardly something specific to the registry.</p><p>Are you seriously suggesting the mess of config files hidden spread across various random and ambiguously named directories is somehow less hard to hide Malware in? At least in Windows you can be fortunate enough to know it's more likely than not, hidden in the registry. You don't have that with Linux, it could be hidden anywhere throughout the file system in the depths of numerous long, text based config files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The registry makes a great place to hide stuff in ( see also half the malware to come down the pike in the past 9 years ) " I 'm not aware of any OS config system that does n't have this trait so it 's hardly something specific to the registry.Are you seriously suggesting the mess of config files hidden spread across various random and ambiguously named directories is somehow less hard to hide Malware in ?
At least in Windows you can be fortunate enough to know it 's more likely than not , hidden in the registry .
You do n't have that with Linux , it could be hidden anywhere throughout the file system in the depths of numerous long , text based config files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The registry makes a great place to hide stuff in (see also half the malware to come down the pike in the past 9 years)"I'm not aware of any OS config system that doesn't have this trait so it's hardly something specific to the registry.Are you seriously suggesting the mess of config files hidden spread across various random and ambiguously named directories is somehow less hard to hide Malware in?
At least in Windows you can be fortunate enough to know it's more likely than not, hidden in the registry.
You don't have that with Linux, it could be hidden anywhere throughout the file system in the depths of numerous long, text based config files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773189</id>
	<title>sounds like the Mozilla Foundation</title>
	<author>alizard</author>
	<datestamp>1255688760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>should secure Firefox to make it impossible for M$ to install <b>anything</b> in their browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>should secure Firefox to make it impossible for M $ to install anything in their browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>should secure Firefox to make it impossible for M$ to install anything in their browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772987</id>
	<title>Re:CrippleWare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255687380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>IMHO, I don't see the need to shove<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET down web users throats, making them vulnerable to more 'root'-owned style attacks by placing the internet one step closer to your local Just In Time (to pwn you) compilers.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Two reasons come to mind.  1)  AJAX and other alternatives tend to be open standards, so vendorlock (a favorite MS tactic) doesn't apply or doesn't easily apply.  There is one thing Microsoft really does not like to do, and that's competing on merit in a level playing field that has low barriers to entry for competitors.  If it were otherwise, then they would use completely open, unencumbered standards wherever possible (i.e., for every protocol and every file format they create) but this, obviously,  is not the case.  2)  It's not like Microsoft is ever going to have any legal liability for placing their<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET marketshare ahead of user security.  If a customer's machine gets compromised that would not have been compromised without MS's unilateral decision to install the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET component, that customer has no recourse whatsoever.  They can make you as vulnerable as they like in order to advance their marketing goals and they can do it with impunity.
<br> <br>
So, Microsoft has something to gain, namely further adoption of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and the control that comes with that, and they have nothing to lose.  From a business perspective they have no reason not to do this.  The only thing that would stop them would be for the average user to both understand these things and demand something different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , I do n't see the need to shove .NET down web users throats , making them vulnerable to more 'root'-owned style attacks by placing the internet one step closer to your local Just In Time ( to pwn you ) compilers .
Two reasons come to mind .
1 ) AJAX and other alternatives tend to be open standards , so vendorlock ( a favorite MS tactic ) does n't apply or does n't easily apply .
There is one thing Microsoft really does not like to do , and that 's competing on merit in a level playing field that has low barriers to entry for competitors .
If it were otherwise , then they would use completely open , unencumbered standards wherever possible ( i.e. , for every protocol and every file format they create ) but this , obviously , is not the case .
2 ) It 's not like Microsoft is ever going to have any legal liability for placing their .NET marketshare ahead of user security .
If a customer 's machine gets compromised that would not have been compromised without MS 's unilateral decision to install the .NET component , that customer has no recourse whatsoever .
They can make you as vulnerable as they like in order to advance their marketing goals and they can do it with impunity .
So , Microsoft has something to gain , namely further adoption of .NET and the control that comes with that , and they have nothing to lose .
From a business perspective they have no reason not to do this .
The only thing that would stop them would be for the average user to both understand these things and demand something different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, I don't see the need to shove .NET down web users throats, making them vulnerable to more 'root'-owned style attacks by placing the internet one step closer to your local Just In Time (to pwn you) compilers.
Two reasons come to mind.
1)  AJAX and other alternatives tend to be open standards, so vendorlock (a favorite MS tactic) doesn't apply or doesn't easily apply.
There is one thing Microsoft really does not like to do, and that's competing on merit in a level playing field that has low barriers to entry for competitors.
If it were otherwise, then they would use completely open, unencumbered standards wherever possible (i.e., for every protocol and every file format they create) but this, obviously,  is not the case.
2)  It's not like Microsoft is ever going to have any legal liability for placing their .NET marketshare ahead of user security.
If a customer's machine gets compromised that would not have been compromised without MS's unilateral decision to install the .NET component, that customer has no recourse whatsoever.
They can make you as vulnerable as they like in order to advance their marketing goals and they can do it with impunity.
So, Microsoft has something to gain, namely further adoption of .NET and the control that comes with that, and they have nothing to lose.
From a business perspective they have no reason not to do this.
The only thing that would stop them would be for the average user to both understand these things and demand something different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775035</id>
	<title>Firefox's fault as well</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1255704000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They shouldn't allow the disable options to be disabled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should n't allow the disable options to be disabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They shouldn't allow the disable options to be disabled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772883</id>
	<title>Re:CrippleWare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255686780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This plugin doesn't do anything other then just report your currently installed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net version to the server, and make the clickonce installation more seamless. Nothing nefarious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This plugin does n't do anything other then just report your currently installed .net version to the server , and make the clickonce installation more seamless .
Nothing nefarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This plugin doesn't do anything other then just report your currently installed .net version to the server, and make the clickonce installation more seamless.
Nothing nefarious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29781967</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255801320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can delete program files, my PC will still work.</p><p>Delete HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE (which you can't just do in regedit, but it can be cleared out for the most part with a custom app or script) and tell me how your next boot goes.</p><p>I'd wait for you to try it, but since you don't realize how bad it can get, I'm not sure that you'd realize you can safe boot and use system restore to recover from it.</p><p>I agree, for most of slashdot, registry editing isn't an issue, but you are talking about throwing someone into an app that has the capability to do rm -rf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc ; rm -rf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/local/etc  (or where it might be in Linux).  That most certainly has the potential to be dangerous for the uninitiated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can delete program files , my PC will still work.Delete HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE ( which you ca n't just do in regedit , but it can be cleared out for the most part with a custom app or script ) and tell me how your next boot goes.I 'd wait for you to try it , but since you do n't realize how bad it can get , I 'm not sure that you 'd realize you can safe boot and use system restore to recover from it.I agree , for most of slashdot , registry editing is n't an issue , but you are talking about throwing someone into an app that has the capability to do rm -rf /etc ; rm -rf /usr/local/etc ( or where it might be in Linux ) .
That most certainly has the potential to be dangerous for the uninitiated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can delete program files, my PC will still work.Delete HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE (which you can't just do in regedit, but it can be cleared out for the most part with a custom app or script) and tell me how your next boot goes.I'd wait for you to try it, but since you don't realize how bad it can get, I'm not sure that you'd realize you can safe boot and use system restore to recover from it.I agree, for most of slashdot, registry editing isn't an issue, but you are talking about throwing someone into an app that has the capability to do rm -rf /etc ; rm -rf /usr/local/etc  (or where it might be in Linux).
That most certainly has the potential to be dangerous for the uninitiated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774799</id>
	<title>Dangerous Chore</title>
	<author>gencha</author>
	<datestamp>1255701240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"a potentially dangerous chore, since a misstep could cripple the PC"<br>
<br>
Wow, what a statement. There are endless ways to cripple your PC if you have no clue what you're doing. Hell, if you put the --delete in a 'find' call at the wrong place, that could cripple your PC as well.<br>
You know what else is extremely dangerous and will most definitely cripple your PC? Ignorance about the system you are using. Computers are complicated machines. You can't hope to use one without having to learn how your system works.<br>
<br>
It's like when your car breaks down for the first time and someone explains to you that you need to check the oil every once in a while. At some point you gotta look under the hood, otherwise you will break it.<br>
<br>
So please spare me these observations about the outrageous hazards that come with your Windows operating system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" a potentially dangerous chore , since a misstep could cripple the PC " Wow , what a statement .
There are endless ways to cripple your PC if you have no clue what you 're doing .
Hell , if you put the --delete in a 'find ' call at the wrong place , that could cripple your PC as well .
You know what else is extremely dangerous and will most definitely cripple your PC ?
Ignorance about the system you are using .
Computers are complicated machines .
You ca n't hope to use one without having to learn how your system works .
It 's like when your car breaks down for the first time and someone explains to you that you need to check the oil every once in a while .
At some point you got ta look under the hood , otherwise you will break it .
So please spare me these observations about the outrageous hazards that come with your Windows operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a potentially dangerous chore, since a misstep could cripple the PC"

Wow, what a statement.
There are endless ways to cripple your PC if you have no clue what you're doing.
Hell, if you put the --delete in a 'find' call at the wrong place, that could cripple your PC as well.
You know what else is extremely dangerous and will most definitely cripple your PC?
Ignorance about the system you are using.
Computers are complicated machines.
You can't hope to use one without having to learn how your system works.
It's like when your car breaks down for the first time and someone explains to you that you need to check the oil every once in a while.
At some point you gotta look under the hood, otherwise you will break it.
So please spare me these observations about the outrageous hazards that come with your Windows operating system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773605</id>
	<title>Dotnet Botnet</title>
	<author>AK Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1255691520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, the irony!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , the irony !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, the irony!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773471</id>
	<title>Why does Firefox allow this?</title>
	<author>bhagwad</author>
	<datestamp>1255690500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why the Firefox browser allows an external party to do stuff like this. IMHO, no third party should be allowed to add something that cannot be disabled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why the Firefox browser allows an external party to do stuff like this .
IMHO , no third party should be allowed to add something that can not be disabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why the Firefox browser allows an external party to do stuff like this.
IMHO, no third party should be allowed to add something that cannot be disabled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772943</id>
	<title>I haven't read the fta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255687140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>nor have I even read any comments here<br>but the next time I hem and haw&nbsp; about Mac vs Windows.<br><br>I'll choose Mac, cuz at least they aren't try to sabotage me and my applications....(probably)<br><br>The next time one of those idiots on TV say "Im a PC" I'll say back "and your infected! get away from me......"<br><br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>nor have I even read any comments herebut the next time I hem and haw   about Mac vs Windows.I 'll choose Mac , cuz at least they are n't try to sabotage me and my applications.... ( probably ) The next time one of those idiots on TV say " Im a PC " I 'll say back " and your infected !
get away from me...... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nor have I even read any comments herebut the next time I hem and haw  about Mac vs Windows.I'll choose Mac, cuz at least they aren't try to sabotage me and my applications....(probably)The next time one of those idiots on TV say "Im a PC" I'll say back "and your infected!
get away from me......"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774499</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1255698540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Not really, not when it's due to a plugin they themselves installed and have their name all over. I mean, you don't consider Flash vulnerabilities to be the fault of IE or Firefox, do you?"</p><p>There is some grain of truth to this. You can't blame everything on Firefox OR Microsoft.</p><p>My father-in-law managed to install Firefox after I recommended it to him in a phone call. Only when I see him using his laptop on a camping trip months later, he had somehow managed to make the the shortcut to Firefox a BOOKMARK in Internet Explorer, thus requiring him to boot Internet Explorer in order to fire up Firefox. Weeee.</p><p>Sometimes you need look no further then then the end-user if your looking to hang blame on someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Not really , not when it 's due to a plugin they themselves installed and have their name all over .
I mean , you do n't consider Flash vulnerabilities to be the fault of IE or Firefox , do you ?
" There is some grain of truth to this .
You ca n't blame everything on Firefox OR Microsoft.My father-in-law managed to install Firefox after I recommended it to him in a phone call .
Only when I see him using his laptop on a camping trip months later , he had somehow managed to make the the shortcut to Firefox a BOOKMARK in Internet Explorer , thus requiring him to boot Internet Explorer in order to fire up Firefox .
Weeee.Sometimes you need look no further then then the end-user if your looking to hang blame on someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Not really, not when it's due to a plugin they themselves installed and have their name all over.
I mean, you don't consider Flash vulnerabilities to be the fault of IE or Firefox, do you?
"There is some grain of truth to this.
You can't blame everything on Firefox OR Microsoft.My father-in-law managed to install Firefox after I recommended it to him in a phone call.
Only when I see him using his laptop on a camping trip months later, he had somehow managed to make the the shortcut to Firefox a BOOKMARK in Internet Explorer, thus requiring him to boot Internet Explorer in order to fire up Firefox.
Weeee.Sometimes you need look no further then then the end-user if your looking to hang blame on someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29781905</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255799880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry how does 'Microsoft made a buggy/insecure plugin for Firefox' sound bad for Firefox in anyway?  Are you so dumb that you can't understand the difference.  My 60 year old father in law could understand the difference and he's in know way a techie, why is it that techies are the ones who think this is confusing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry how does 'Microsoft made a buggy/insecure plugin for Firefox ' sound bad for Firefox in anyway ?
Are you so dumb that you ca n't understand the difference .
My 60 year old father in law could understand the difference and he 's in know way a techie , why is it that techies are the ones who think this is confusing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry how does 'Microsoft made a buggy/insecure plugin for Firefox' sound bad for Firefox in anyway?
Are you so dumb that you can't understand the difference.
My 60 year old father in law could understand the difference and he's in know way a techie, why is it that techies are the ones who think this is confusing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772879</id>
	<title>Re:CrippleWare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255686780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to know so little about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to know so little about .net</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to know so little about .net</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1255685580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is from the same people that claimed that the Google Chrome Render plugin for IE6+ will make the browser less secure?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is from the same people that claimed that the Google Chrome Render plugin for IE6 + will make the browser less secure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is from the same people that claimed that the Google Chrome Render plugin for IE6+ will make the browser less secure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772757</id>
	<title>Microsoft is DEAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255686120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>according to <a href="http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html" title="paulgraham.com" rel="nofollow">Paul Graham</a> [paulgraham.com], Microslop  inherited its monopoly from I.B.M.</p><p>Yours In Yaznogorsk,<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO9HkirVHh0" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Kilgore T.</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>according to Paul Graham [ paulgraham.com ] , Microslop inherited its monopoly from I.B.M.Yours In Yaznogorsk,Kilgore T. [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>according to Paul Graham [paulgraham.com], Microslop  inherited its monopoly from I.B.M.Yours In Yaznogorsk,Kilgore T. [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775683</id>
	<title>SOP</title>
	<author>eav</author>
	<datestamp>1255714800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well duh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773553</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1255691100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or could it be the reason why Apple wants to keep Safari, the default (also last resort) OS X browser "extension free"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or could it be the reason why Apple wants to keep Safari , the default ( also last resort ) OS X browser " extension free " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or could it be the reason why Apple wants to keep Safari, the default (also last resort) OS X browser "extension free"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775349</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1255708920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You had me going there right up to the "Algol-60" part. In 2009? After all everybody her on SlashDot knows that Algol-68 is the most recent version! Why would anybody be using a back-dated version of a language? <p>

Ok, seriously. Why Algol-60?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You had me going there right up to the " Algol-60 " part .
In 2009 ?
After all everybody her on SlashDot knows that Algol-68 is the most recent version !
Why would anybody be using a back-dated version of a language ?
Ok , seriously .
Why Algol-60 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had me going there right up to the "Algol-60" part.
In 2009?
After all everybody her on SlashDot knows that Algol-68 is the most recent version!
Why would anybody be using a back-dated version of a language?
Ok, seriously.
Why Algol-60?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772831</id>
	<title>Not this shit again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255686480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are lots of programs that install plugins automagically...Skype, antiviruses, and Picasa are a few that I can think of off the top of my head.  The only bad part of this whole thing is that MS screwed up the remove/uninstall feature by making it show up for all users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of programs that install plugins automagically...Skype , antiviruses , and Picasa are a few that I can think of off the top of my head .
The only bad part of this whole thing is that MS screwed up the remove/uninstall feature by making it show up for all users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of programs that install plugins automagically...Skype, antiviruses, and Picasa are a few that I can think of off the top of my head.
The only bad part of this whole thing is that MS screwed up the remove/uninstall feature by making it show up for all users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773567</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255691220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's how those bastards did me, too!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP.That 's how those bastards did me , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP.That's how those bastards did me, too!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29781475</id>
	<title>Hard Task</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see here how do I uninstall a PoS add-on that won't uninstall from Firefox. Oh yeah uninstall Firefox and reboot then reinstall Firefox. Amazingly simple, imagine that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see here how do I uninstall a PoS add-on that wo n't uninstall from Firefox .
Oh yeah uninstall Firefox and reboot then reinstall Firefox .
Amazingly simple , imagine that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see here how do I uninstall a PoS add-on that won't uninstall from Firefox.
Oh yeah uninstall Firefox and reboot then reinstall Firefox.
Amazingly simple, imagine that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773285</id>
	<title>Not just Firefox</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1255689360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that this isn't just about Firefox. There's a WPF plugin for IE as well. Furthermore, this is about any browser that can handle "Netscape style" plugins, which is what WPF/XBAP plugin is. In particular, this includes Opera and Chrome, too; not sure about Safari, but it's probably covered as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that this is n't just about Firefox .
There 's a WPF plugin for IE as well .
Furthermore , this is about any browser that can handle " Netscape style " plugins , which is what WPF/XBAP plugin is .
In particular , this includes Opera and Chrome , too ; not sure about Safari , but it 's probably covered as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that this isn't just about Firefox.
There's a WPF plugin for IE as well.
Furthermore, this is about any browser that can handle "Netscape style" plugins, which is what WPF/XBAP plugin is.
In particular, this includes Opera and Chrome, too; not sure about Safari, but it's probably covered as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773053</id>
	<title>WinVista sp2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255687800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless I fail at reading (Very possible), this post is wrong. Like others on the boards, i just went into plugins and disabled it.</p><p>I am currently fully patched on vista sp2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I fail at reading ( Very possible ) , this post is wrong .
Like others on the boards , i just went into plugins and disabled it.I am currently fully patched on vista sp2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I fail at reading (Very possible), this post is wrong.
Like others on the boards, i just went into plugins and disabled it.I am currently fully patched on vista sp2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773815</id>
	<title>Get a Mac</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1255692960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why am I not surprised?
This is classic Microsocks strategy.
They act like mal-ware. No wonder there is so much on their systems. Get a Mac.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why am I not surprised ?
This is classic Microsocks strategy .
They act like mal-ware .
No wonder there is so much on their systems .
Get a Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why am I not surprised?
This is classic Microsocks strategy.
They act like mal-ware.
No wonder there is so much on their systems.
Get a Mac.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772635</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1255685400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFA, It's a Microsoft vulnerability running on top of (within?) Firefox. Like ActiveX v2.0 for FireFox.<br>

Microsoft owns Windows and so they can make whatever the hell they want work with it as annoyingly and as unsafely as possible, in any way that they wish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA , It 's a Microsoft vulnerability running on top of ( within ?
) Firefox .
Like ActiveX v2.0 for FireFox .
Microsoft owns Windows and so they can make whatever the hell they want work with it as annoyingly and as unsafely as possible , in any way that they wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA, It's a Microsoft vulnerability running on top of (within?
) Firefox.
Like ActiveX v2.0 for FireFox.
Microsoft owns Windows and so they can make whatever the hell they want work with it as annoyingly and as unsafely as possible, in any way that they wish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772657</id>
	<title>They said it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was intended to provide a "uniform Windows experience"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was intended to provide a " uniform Windows experience " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was intended to provide a "uniform Windows experience"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773663</id>
	<title>Re:Registry Danger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255692000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The registry also suffers from the common problem of all single-use binary formats: you can't examine or manage it with existing tools. For example, how would you go about comparing two copies of the registry for incremental changes (without first exporting both to plain text)? Can you place it into any of the excellent free, off-the-shelf version control systems, and still take full advantage of their change tracking and merging features?</p><p>The mass of plain-text configuration files used on Unix systems may have some flaws--they could certainly be made more uniform--but at least you have a wide variety of general-purpose tools available to help manage the complexity. With the registry you have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... RegEdit. That's fine for reading and writing specific keys, but not much else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The registry also suffers from the common problem of all single-use binary formats : you ca n't examine or manage it with existing tools .
For example , how would you go about comparing two copies of the registry for incremental changes ( without first exporting both to plain text ) ?
Can you place it into any of the excellent free , off-the-shelf version control systems , and still take full advantage of their change tracking and merging features ? The mass of plain-text configuration files used on Unix systems may have some flaws--they could certainly be made more uniform--but at least you have a wide variety of general-purpose tools available to help manage the complexity .
With the registry you have ... RegEdit. That 's fine for reading and writing specific keys , but not much else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The registry also suffers from the common problem of all single-use binary formats: you can't examine or manage it with existing tools.
For example, how would you go about comparing two copies of the registry for incremental changes (without first exporting both to plain text)?
Can you place it into any of the excellent free, off-the-shelf version control systems, and still take full advantage of their change tracking and merging features?The mass of plain-text configuration files used on Unix systems may have some flaws--they could certainly be made more uniform--but at least you have a wide variety of general-purpose tools available to help manage the complexity.
With the registry you have ... RegEdit. That's fine for reading and writing specific keys, but not much else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775735</id>
	<title>the final solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255715520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We really need a nice and MASSIVE exploitation of the SSL implementation hole that will install some ridiculous worm on every single windows machine connected to the internet.</p><p>I wouldn't mind formatting my pc if it was enough to convince the idiots to stop automatically installing things on my system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We really need a nice and MASSIVE exploitation of the SSL implementation hole that will install some ridiculous worm on every single windows machine connected to the internet.I would n't mind formatting my pc if it was enough to convince the idiots to stop automatically installing things on my system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really need a nice and MASSIVE exploitation of the SSL implementation hole that will install some ridiculous worm on every single windows machine connected to the internet.I wouldn't mind formatting my pc if it was enough to convince the idiots to stop automatically installing things on my system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777049</id>
	<title>Re:Sabotage?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1255790100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Too many movies makes you think strange things. For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP. Real life: rotary phones, paperwork in triplicate, and a gigantic fucking bureaucracy that thinks pagers are still useful.</i> <br> <br>How exactly does that stop them being "bad asses"? They didn't need any of that movie technology to cause all sorts of problems the world still has to live with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many movies makes you think strange things .
For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP .
Real life : rotary phones , paperwork in triplicate , and a gigantic fucking bureaucracy that thinks pagers are still useful .
How exactly does that stop them being " bad asses " ?
They did n't need any of that movie technology to cause all sorts of problems the world still has to live with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many movies makes you think strange things.
For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP.
Real life: rotary phones, paperwork in triplicate, and a gigantic fucking bureaucracy that thinks pagers are still useful.
How exactly does that stop them being "bad asses"?
They didn't need any of that movie technology to cause all sorts of problems the world still has to live with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773107</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1255688220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The other funny thing is that the firefox plugin was installed without the user's permission. The user has to go to the chrome website and click the button that say "install".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other funny thing is that the firefox plugin was installed without the user 's permission .
The user has to go to the chrome website and click the button that say " install " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other funny thing is that the firefox plugin was installed without the user's permission.
The user has to go to the chrome website and click the button that say "install".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773955</id>
	<title>Re:What? Shouldn't firefox fix this one?</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1255693860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No.  I am not apologizing for Microsoft.  This was "Sony Stupid" of them.  We're used to that here, though.  What we're not used to (and apparently sweeping under the rug) is the massive, unholy hell of a mess mozilla's extension system for firefox is....</p></div><p>Not "Sony Stupid". That implies a lack of intelligence/insight. Whereas with Sony, it's done intentionally and with ingenuity. The word for a lack of good intentions is "Evil". The question remains whether or not this MS screwup was intentional. I'm voting for stupid/negligent. Also, you're totally right about the mess that is Firefox's extension/addon system. Mozilla should be the ones taking responsibility for building a system that gives the addon developers such latitude.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I am not apologizing for Microsoft .
This was " Sony Stupid " of them .
We 're used to that here , though .
What we 're not used to ( and apparently sweeping under the rug ) is the massive , unholy hell of a mess mozilla 's extension system for firefox is....Not " Sony Stupid " .
That implies a lack of intelligence/insight .
Whereas with Sony , it 's done intentionally and with ingenuity .
The word for a lack of good intentions is " Evil " .
The question remains whether or not this MS screwup was intentional .
I 'm voting for stupid/negligent .
Also , you 're totally right about the mess that is Firefox 's extension/addon system .
Mozilla should be the ones taking responsibility for building a system that gives the addon developers such latitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I am not apologizing for Microsoft.
This was "Sony Stupid" of them.
We're used to that here, though.
What we're not used to (and apparently sweeping under the rug) is the massive, unholy hell of a mess mozilla's extension system for firefox is....Not "Sony Stupid".
That implies a lack of intelligence/insight.
Whereas with Sony, it's done intentionally and with ingenuity.
The word for a lack of good intentions is "Evil".
The question remains whether or not this MS screwup was intentional.
I'm voting for stupid/negligent.
Also, you're totally right about the mess that is Firefox's extension/addon system.
Mozilla should be the ones taking responsibility for building a system that gives the addon developers such latitude.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773141</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29781905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29790789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29781967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_189243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773181
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775349
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775639
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772623
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775223
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29790789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29781905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29779947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29781967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773663
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777199
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29774581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773707
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29778525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29775521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29776209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29777201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_189243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29772661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_189243.29773107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
