<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_17_2058240</id>
	<title>Firefox Disables Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Addon</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255781160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://zosxaviusgmailcom/" rel="nofollow">ZosX</a> writes <i>"Around 11:45 PM Friday night, I was prompted by Firefox that it had <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/173858/mozilla\_blocks\_microsofts\_buggy\_firefox\_plugin.html">disabled the addons</a> that Microsoft has been <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218&amp;tid=11">including with .NET</a> &mdash; specifically, the .NET Framework Assistant and the Windows Presentation Foundation. The popup announcing this said that the 'following addons have been known to cause stability or <a href="//it.slashdot.org/story/09/10/16/189243">security issues</a> with Firefox.' Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner."</i> Here's the <a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/10/16/net-framework-assistant-blocked-to-disarm-security-vulnerability/">Mozilla security blog entry</a> announcing the block, which Mozilla implemented via its <a href="https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Add-ons+Blocklist">blocklisting mechanism</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ZosX writes " Around 11 : 45 PM Friday night , I was prompted by Firefox that it had disabled the addons that Microsoft has been including with .NET    specifically , the .NET Framework Assistant and the Windows Presentation Foundation .
The popup announcing this said that the 'following addons have been known to cause stability or security issues with Firefox .
' Thanks , Mozilla team , for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner .
" Here 's the Mozilla security blog entry announcing the block , which Mozilla implemented via its blocklisting mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZosX writes "Around 11:45 PM Friday night, I was prompted by Firefox that it had disabled the addons that Microsoft has been including with .NET — specifically, the .NET Framework Assistant and the Windows Presentation Foundation.
The popup announcing this said that the 'following addons have been known to cause stability or security issues with Firefox.
' Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner.
" Here's the Mozilla security blog entry announcing the block, which Mozilla implemented via its blocklisting mechanism.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783637</id>
	<title>Hooray for UAC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255874940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logged in, UAC popped up a notification that some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET installer was trying to do something funny.  I disallowed it.</p><p>Thanks, UAC.  Best thing Microsoft has done for Windows in forever and most people disable it.  Pity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logged in , UAC popped up a notification that some .NET installer was trying to do something funny .
I disallowed it.Thanks , UAC .
Best thing Microsoft has done for Windows in forever and most people disable it .
Pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logged in, UAC popped up a notification that some .NET installer was trying to do something funny.
I disallowed it.Thanks, UAC.
Best thing Microsoft has done for Windows in forever and most people disable it.
Pity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784589</id>
	<title>Re:How about just disabling Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1255884180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"On the bright side, my system now runs 1.27\% faster compared to yesterday."</p><p>Which means that time you spent recompiling everything should pay for itself after about 90 more days of straight Firefox usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" On the bright side , my system now runs 1.27 \ % faster compared to yesterday .
" Which means that time you spent recompiling everything should pay for itself after about 90 more days of straight Firefox usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"On the bright side, my system now runs 1.27\% faster compared to yesterday.
"Which means that time you spent recompiling everything should pay for itself after about 90 more days of straight Firefox usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783555</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1255874040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's actually a whole Firefox setting namespace devoted to bits of useragent to append, you don't even need a whole addon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's actually a whole Firefox setting namespace devoted to bits of useragent to append , you do n't even need a whole addon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's actually a whole Firefox setting namespace devoted to bits of useragent to append, you don't even need a whole addon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785397</id>
	<title>Wait, its okay for Firefox to have a kill switch?</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1255891920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given all the past fuss about Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft to have the ability to remotely disable features, software or addons it's suddenly not an issue that Firefox has the capability of pushing changes?  While I think the Firefox devs gave some serious thought before throwing this switch, I don't think this is a no-brainer.   What about environments where they need the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net add-on?  Are they forced to go back to using IE?  Do you see Microsoft disabling the old versions of Firefox or Adobe Flash?</p><p>If you want to read a mix of retarded, informative, and stupid comments have a look at the bug report <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777</a> [mozilla.org].  For example - "Firefox shouldn't have to rely on IE patches for security" - this is not related to IE.   It also seems to be political as they have no interest in determining if they have the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net update that negates the vulnerability (the vulnerability is not in the firefox add-on, its in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net which becomes accessible from within Firefox if the addon is enabled).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given all the past fuss about Amazon , Apple , and Microsoft to have the ability to remotely disable features , software or addons it 's suddenly not an issue that Firefox has the capability of pushing changes ?
While I think the Firefox devs gave some serious thought before throwing this switch , I do n't think this is a no-brainer .
What about environments where they need the .net add-on ?
Are they forced to go back to using IE ?
Do you see Microsoft disabling the old versions of Firefox or Adobe Flash ? If you want to read a mix of retarded , informative , and stupid comments have a look at the bug report https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 522777 [ mozilla.org ] .
For example - " Firefox should n't have to rely on IE patches for security " - this is not related to IE .
It also seems to be political as they have no interest in determining if they have the .net update that negates the vulnerability ( the vulnerability is not in the firefox add-on , its in .net which becomes accessible from within Firefox if the addon is enabled ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given all the past fuss about Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft to have the ability to remotely disable features, software or addons it's suddenly not an issue that Firefox has the capability of pushing changes?
While I think the Firefox devs gave some serious thought before throwing this switch, I don't think this is a no-brainer.
What about environments where they need the .net add-on?
Are they forced to go back to using IE?
Do you see Microsoft disabling the old versions of Firefox or Adobe Flash?If you want to read a mix of retarded, informative, and stupid comments have a look at the bug report https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777 [mozilla.org].
For example - "Firefox shouldn't have to rely on IE patches for security" - this is not related to IE.
It also seems to be political as they have no interest in determining if they have the .net update that negates the vulnerability (the vulnerability is not in the firefox add-on, its in .net which becomes accessible from within Firefox if the addon is enabled).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786719</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Mike Shaver</author>
	<datestamp>1255858800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no version difference for the plugin or add-on between patched and unpatched systems.  That's one reason that this is so messy right now; if we had known about the Firefox aspect of the vulnerability before the SRD blog post, we would have suggested just that sort of version bump.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no version difference for the plugin or add-on between patched and unpatched systems .
That 's one reason that this is so messy right now ; if we had known about the Firefox aspect of the vulnerability before the SRD blog post , we would have suggested just that sort of version bump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no version difference for the plugin or add-on between patched and unpatched systems.
That's one reason that this is so messy right now; if we had known about the Firefox aspect of the vulnerability before the SRD blog post, we would have suggested just that sort of version bump.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783575</id>
	<title>Re:Nuke it with regedit...</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1255874340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only nukes the addon, the plugin is hiding in C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\Windows Presentation Foundation\NPWPF.dll (and C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.20506\WPF\NPWPF.dll if you have the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 4.0 beta).</p><p>Remove HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MozillaPlugins\@microsoft.com/WPF,version=3.5</p><p>And HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MozillaPlugins\@microsoft.com/WPF, version=4.0 if you have the 4.0 beta</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only nukes the addon , the plugin is hiding in C : \ WINDOWS \ Microsoft.NET \ Framework \ v3.5 \ Windows Presentation Foundation \ NPWPF.dll ( and C : \ WINDOWS \ Microsoft.NET \ Framework \ v4.0.20506 \ WPF \ NPWPF.dll if you have the .NET 4.0 beta ) .Remove HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ MozillaPlugins \ @ microsoft.com/WPF,version = 3.5And HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ MozillaPlugins \ @ microsoft.com/WPF , version = 4.0 if you have the 4.0 beta</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only nukes the addon, the plugin is hiding in C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\Windows Presentation Foundation\NPWPF.dll (and C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.20506\WPF\NPWPF.dll if you have the .NET 4.0 beta).Remove HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MozillaPlugins\@microsoft.com/WPF,version=3.5And HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MozillaPlugins\@microsoft.com/WPF, version=4.0 if you have the 4.0 beta</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784877</id>
	<title>mozillawnd!</title>
	<author>yanyan</author>
	<datestamp>1255887000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozillawnd! w00t!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozillawnd !
w00t !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozillawnd!
w00t!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783417</id>
	<title>The real reason why they want to hack user agent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255872180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While some slashdotters think otherwise, Java/Windows install base is huge thanks to couple of very popular apps and tiny games.  Since companies these days looks for multi platform, multi arch; MS needed to show that their herd has been installed/infected by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET too.</p><p>So, they haxor the user agent to show that clueless CTO that their 90\% of users have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET so they should use it instead of massively multi platform Java.</p><p>Anyway, as you see, karma is a real bitch and if Sun had a real management, they could milk this issue but... Lucky for MS, Sun is under auto pilot, even under Larry Ellison's Oracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While some slashdotters think otherwise , Java/Windows install base is huge thanks to couple of very popular apps and tiny games .
Since companies these days looks for multi platform , multi arch ; MS needed to show that their herd has been installed/infected by .NET too.So , they haxor the user agent to show that clueless CTO that their 90 \ % of users have .NET so they should use it instead of massively multi platform Java.Anyway , as you see , karma is a real bitch and if Sun had a real management , they could milk this issue but... Lucky for MS , Sun is under auto pilot , even under Larry Ellison 's Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While some slashdotters think otherwise, Java/Windows install base is huge thanks to couple of very popular apps and tiny games.
Since companies these days looks for multi platform, multi arch; MS needed to show that their herd has been installed/infected by .NET too.So, they haxor the user agent to show that clueless CTO that their 90\% of users have .NET so they should use it instead of massively multi platform Java.Anyway, as you see, karma is a real bitch and if Sun had a real management, they could milk this issue but... Lucky for MS, Sun is under auto pilot, even under Larry Ellison's Oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784011</id>
	<title>and people wonder why MS has security problems</title>
	<author>ummit</author>
	<datestamp>1255879020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
In what universe is it acceptable for vendor A to modify vendor B's software on User C's (i.e. my) computer?  To modify it <em>at all</em>, let alone with security-impacting ramifications?
</p><p>
Earth to Microsoft: drive-by downloads are among the worst of vulnerabilities.  They must be avoided at all costs.  And the way to avoid them is not to be more careful when writing and installing unnecessary little browser plug-ins.  The way to avoid them is not to install unnecessary little browser plug-ins in the first place.  (And if you simply must install unnecessary little browser plug-ins, do it with your <em>own</em> grotty browser, not the non-Microsoft one I installed specifically to avoid all the security concerns of yours.)
</p><p>
Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In what universe is it acceptable for vendor A to modify vendor B 's software on User C 's ( i.e .
my ) computer ?
To modify it at all , let alone with security-impacting ramifications ?
Earth to Microsoft : drive-by downloads are among the worst of vulnerabilities .
They must be avoided at all costs .
And the way to avoid them is not to be more careful when writing and installing unnecessary little browser plug-ins .
The way to avoid them is not to install unnecessary little browser plug-ins in the first place .
( And if you simply must install unnecessary little browser plug-ins , do it with your own grotty browser , not the non-Microsoft one I installed specifically to avoid all the security concerns of yours .
) Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In what universe is it acceptable for vendor A to modify vendor B's software on User C's (i.e.
my) computer?
To modify it at all, let alone with security-impacting ramifications?
Earth to Microsoft: drive-by downloads are among the worst of vulnerabilities.
They must be avoided at all costs.
And the way to avoid them is not to be more careful when writing and installing unnecessary little browser plug-ins.
The way to avoid them is not to install unnecessary little browser plug-ins in the first place.
(And if you simply must install unnecessary little browser plug-ins, do it with your own grotty browser, not the non-Microsoft one I installed specifically to avoid all the security concerns of yours.
)

Sheesh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785905</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255895940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mike, any user NOT installing the IE updates on Windows is an idiot, because the COM components of IE are used in many applications. Thus not patching IE even if they haven't opened it in ages is the stupidest thing they could ever do (followed by not updating Flash Player) for the security of their system. So saying that people won't install the patch because it has the letters IE in the name is bull. The patch is listed as a CRITICAL update, not recommended but CRITICAL. On the other hand should MS introduce an <b>optional</b> update to install an updated version of the plug-ins? I'm thinking so...</p><p>To those who are going to make the inevitable comments about the use of the COM IE components supporting MS browser monopoly: your right, but there is no guaranteed alternative, and I have yet to see a COM interface for FF, or Chrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mike , any user NOT installing the IE updates on Windows is an idiot , because the COM components of IE are used in many applications .
Thus not patching IE even if they have n't opened it in ages is the stupidest thing they could ever do ( followed by not updating Flash Player ) for the security of their system .
So saying that people wo n't install the patch because it has the letters IE in the name is bull .
The patch is listed as a CRITICAL update , not recommended but CRITICAL .
On the other hand should MS introduce an optional update to install an updated version of the plug-ins ?
I 'm thinking so...To those who are going to make the inevitable comments about the use of the COM IE components supporting MS browser monopoly : your right , but there is no guaranteed alternative , and I have yet to see a COM interface for FF , or Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mike, any user NOT installing the IE updates on Windows is an idiot, because the COM components of IE are used in many applications.
Thus not patching IE even if they haven't opened it in ages is the stupidest thing they could ever do (followed by not updating Flash Player) for the security of their system.
So saying that people won't install the patch because it has the letters IE in the name is bull.
The patch is listed as a CRITICAL update, not recommended but CRITICAL.
On the other hand should MS introduce an optional update to install an updated version of the plug-ins?
I'm thinking so...To those who are going to make the inevitable comments about the use of the COM IE components supporting MS browser monopoly: your right, but there is no guaranteed alternative, and I have yet to see a COM interface for FF, or Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784195</id>
	<title>Re:My surreal experience</title>
	<author>sskinnider</author>
	<datestamp>1255880460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This functionality will be included in a future release of Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This functionality will be included in a future release of Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This functionality will be included in a future release of Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784181</id>
	<title>hur hur hur</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1255880400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I might feel more sorry for you if I had a Windows machine I could install the addon on.  Why wasn't the page written in Silverlight or something?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-3</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might feel more sorry for you if I had a Windows machine I could install the addon on .
Why was n't the page written in Silverlight or something ?
: -3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might feel more sorry for you if I had a Windows machine I could install the addon on.
Why wasn't the page written in Silverlight or something?
:-3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783503</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>xonicx</author>
	<datestamp>1255873260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really. I was on verge of swtiching to chrome because of firefox getting stuck while typing in address bar. Disabling "Windows Foundation Presention" magically fixed the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
I was on verge of swtiching to chrome because of firefox getting stuck while typing in address bar .
Disabling " Windows Foundation Presention " magically fixed the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
I was on verge of swtiching to chrome because of firefox getting stuck while typing in address bar.
Disabling "Windows Foundation Presention" magically fixed the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</id>
	<title>Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1255875060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner."</p></div><p>Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.</p><p>That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , Mozilla team , for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner .
" Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on / .
if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches , and certainly was n't aware that there were any built into Firefox.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner.
"Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on /.
if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785757</id>
	<title>Re:While they're at it...</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1255894860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just click the "if your download doesn't start, click here" link. It's worked for me in both FF and IE</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just click the " if your download does n't start , click here " link .
It 's worked for me in both FF and IE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just click the "if your download doesn't start, click here" link.
It's worked for me in both FF and IE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792213</id>
	<title>Firefox is coincidentally unstable this morning</title>
	<author>DanJ\_UK</author>
	<datestamp>1255956600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Ironically, my browser's crashed 5 or 6 times more than normal this morning after disabling that plugin; I'm sure it's completely unrelated though.<br><br>&lt;conspiracy&gt;<br>Or is it?<br>&lt;/conspiracy&gt;</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , my browser 's crashed 5 or 6 times more than normal this morning after disabling that plugin ; I 'm sure it 's completely unrelated though.Or is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, my browser's crashed 5 or 6 times more than normal this morning after disabling that plugin; I'm sure it's completely unrelated though.Or is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785209</id>
	<title>Re:How about just disabling Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255890120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has issued a download that will remove the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET-related addon politely.<br>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab&amp;displaylang=en<br>It didn't even ask for a reboot (not sure how that works, if it has to alter the registry) and Firefox seems to be happy now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has issued a download that will remove the .NET-related addon politely.http : //www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx ? FamilyID = cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab&amp;displaylang = enIt did n't even ask for a reboot ( not sure how that works , if it has to alter the registry ) and Firefox seems to be happy now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has issued a download that will remove the .NET-related addon politely.http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab&amp;displaylang=enIt didn't even ask for a reboot (not sure how that works, if it has to alter the registry) and Firefox seems to be happy now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784159</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255880280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I was angry at Microsofts silent installation of this component in Firefox and there is part of me that is ready to cheer on Mozilla for disabling it, I also feel disappointed by the reaction to this.</p><p>Not only are they vulnerable versions of Microsoft's add-on disabled, but also all versions indiscriminately, including the patched version that Microsoft rolled out last this Tuesday. Just as some people may have been impacted by Microsoft's original silent installation, how does Mozilla know whether an end user actually uses sites that depend on that add-on or not?</p><p>Imagine what would have happened if Mozilla remotely disabled everyone's Flash plug-in each time a new vulnerability was discovered in it? There have been 0-day exploits in the wild for Flash and just think about it's install base. Or the Adobe Reader plug-in? Lord knows it's a more deserving candidate given its history.</p><p>In this case there may be some justification in that the unrequested component might pose yet unknown risks, but now I have to wonder what Microsoft's strategy will be during their next update cycle - to re-enable it given that they've fixed the hole in question? Did Mozilla just give Microsoft precedent that would support it disabling Chrome Frame in future?</p><p>As a customer of both parties I feel that I've been dragged into someone else's war, which is being waged with my computer as the battle field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I was angry at Microsofts silent installation of this component in Firefox and there is part of me that is ready to cheer on Mozilla for disabling it , I also feel disappointed by the reaction to this.Not only are they vulnerable versions of Microsoft 's add-on disabled , but also all versions indiscriminately , including the patched version that Microsoft rolled out last this Tuesday .
Just as some people may have been impacted by Microsoft 's original silent installation , how does Mozilla know whether an end user actually uses sites that depend on that add-on or not ? Imagine what would have happened if Mozilla remotely disabled everyone 's Flash plug-in each time a new vulnerability was discovered in it ?
There have been 0-day exploits in the wild for Flash and just think about it 's install base .
Or the Adobe Reader plug-in ?
Lord knows it 's a more deserving candidate given its history.In this case there may be some justification in that the unrequested component might pose yet unknown risks , but now I have to wonder what Microsoft 's strategy will be during their next update cycle - to re-enable it given that they 've fixed the hole in question ?
Did Mozilla just give Microsoft precedent that would support it disabling Chrome Frame in future ? As a customer of both parties I feel that I 've been dragged into someone else 's war , which is being waged with my computer as the battle field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I was angry at Microsofts silent installation of this component in Firefox and there is part of me that is ready to cheer on Mozilla for disabling it, I also feel disappointed by the reaction to this.Not only are they vulnerable versions of Microsoft's add-on disabled, but also all versions indiscriminately, including the patched version that Microsoft rolled out last this Tuesday.
Just as some people may have been impacted by Microsoft's original silent installation, how does Mozilla know whether an end user actually uses sites that depend on that add-on or not?Imagine what would have happened if Mozilla remotely disabled everyone's Flash plug-in each time a new vulnerability was discovered in it?
There have been 0-day exploits in the wild for Flash and just think about it's install base.
Or the Adobe Reader plug-in?
Lord knows it's a more deserving candidate given its history.In this case there may be some justification in that the unrequested component might pose yet unknown risks, but now I have to wonder what Microsoft's strategy will be during their next update cycle - to re-enable it given that they've fixed the hole in question?
Did Mozilla just give Microsoft precedent that would support it disabling Chrome Frame in future?As a customer of both parties I feel that I've been dragged into someone else's war, which is being waged with my computer as the battle field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784837</id>
	<title>.Net vulnerability; fix is broken</title>
	<author>yelvington</author>
	<datestamp>1255886760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moments after Firefox on my Windows PC complained about the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net extension (which I do NOT remember installing), I got a system notification telling me about an important Microsoft security fix that included<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net.</p><p>So I accepted the update. And it failed.</p><p>The ineptitude is just mid-boggling.</p><p>At this point, iTunes and a couple of games are the only reasons Windows is still installed at my house. I would much rather ditch Windows entirely for Ubuntu. I know Apple doesn't want to enable Linux as a rising competitor, but a portable iTunes would be a big stake in the heart of the beast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moments after Firefox on my Windows PC complained about the .Net extension ( which I do NOT remember installing ) , I got a system notification telling me about an important Microsoft security fix that included .Net.So I accepted the update .
And it failed.The ineptitude is just mid-boggling.At this point , iTunes and a couple of games are the only reasons Windows is still installed at my house .
I would much rather ditch Windows entirely for Ubuntu .
I know Apple does n't want to enable Linux as a rising competitor , but a portable iTunes would be a big stake in the heart of the beast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moments after Firefox on my Windows PC complained about the .Net extension (which I do NOT remember installing), I got a system notification telling me about an important Microsoft security fix that included .Net.So I accepted the update.
And it failed.The ineptitude is just mid-boggling.At this point, iTunes and a couple of games are the only reasons Windows is still installed at my house.
I would much rather ditch Windows entirely for Ubuntu.
I know Apple doesn't want to enable Linux as a rising competitor, but a portable iTunes would be a big stake in the heart of the beast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1255895400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All the addon did was to add a piece of text in useragent that told the website<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET version. How do you manage to fuck up that?</i></p><p>For anyone curious as to the <b>real</b> state of affairs behind this MS plugin issue, you might be interested in a few things.  For everyone else just enjoying a good anti-Microsoft circle-jerk, ignore this post.</p><p>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser.  They allow for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible\_Application\_Markup\_Language" title="wikipedia.org">XAML applications</a> [wikipedia.org] to run in Firefox and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce" title="wikipedia.org">ClickOnce</a> [wikipedia.org] program distribution.  For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case).  Isn't this a good thing?</p><p><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777" title="mozilla.org">This is the bug</a> [mozilla.org] in question. There is a <i>lot</i> of interesting comment there, including the fact that while everyone is crying about Microsoft "secretly" adding the plugin and preventing users from disabling it, Mozilla doesn't even give users an option to enable it! Their blocklist is all or nothing. Why doesn't that bother anyone here? One <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777#c71" title="mozilla.org">poster</a> [mozilla.org] is very insightful:</p><blockquote><div><p>Many corporations have begun implementing Firefox and telling their users that it is an equally if not more capable but more secure browser.  For a subset of those corporations, the action of removing necessary tech without consent or a secure method for re-enabling it will result in the removal of the browser from the system completely.  It will be called a failed experiment.  The following day, sys-admins around the world will be left explaining to the non-enthusiast employees that the reversal came because certain business apps would not function in FF.  Those users will only hear that FF is not as capable.</p></div></blockquote><p>But perhaps the best thing about this entire issue, is that <b>Mozilla didn't block the plugins until AFTER they were patched</b> and the mechanism of the block is <b>retarded</b>.  Mozilla is <a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/10/16/net-framework-assistant-blocked-to-disarm-security-vulnerability/" title="mozilla.com">claiming</a> [mozilla.com] that Microsoft agreed to issuing the block of the affected plugins, and that might be true, but only to an extent.  Mozilla is currently blocking the plugins based on the <b>name</b> of the plugin, <b>not the version</b>, which means users who have installed the patched version of the plugs (at this point almost everyone using Windows Update) are still unable to use the plugins and have no way to re-enable them.</p><p>So essentially, by issuing this patch, Mozilla is doing nothing but hurting its business customers.  Slashdotters can scratch their heads trying to figure out who uses these technologies, but the answer is a lot of businesses do.  This absolute, non-scriptable and non-changeable block of these plugins will just remind corporations that open source isn't ready for the big leagues and they should just stick with Microsoft and IE. The sad thing is that if this kind of knee-jerk, carte-blanche blocking behavior becomes the norm for Mozilla, they will probably be right! Taking this kind of control away from the users is simply unacceptable, doubly so for businesses.</p><p>If you're wondering what MS says about this, you might take a look <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/srd/archive/2009/10/12/ms09-054.aspx" title="technet.com">at this</a> [technet.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>First we'd like to make it clear that any customers that have applied the update associated with MS09-054 are protected, regardless of the attack vector.  And most customers need not take any action as they'll receive this update automatically through Automatic Updates.</p></div></blockquote><p>So there it is -- pretty much everyone who has this update (which was NOT installed "silently", it is installed as part of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework which you agreed to install) has also received the patch since both are distributed through Windows Update.</p><p>All in all, what Mozilla has managed to do is damage what trust they had garnered with their users.  They haven't protected anyone from anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the addon did was to add a piece of text in useragent that told the website .NET version .
How do you manage to fuck up that ? For anyone curious as to the real state of affairs behind this MS plugin issue , you might be interested in a few things .
For everyone else just enjoying a good anti-Microsoft circle-jerk , ignore this post.The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser .
They allow for XAML applications [ wikipedia.org ] to run in Firefox and ClickOnce [ wikipedia.org ] program distribution .
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser , this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies ( .NET in this case ) .
Is n't this a good thing ? This is the bug [ mozilla.org ] in question .
There is a lot of interesting comment there , including the fact that while everyone is crying about Microsoft " secretly " adding the plugin and preventing users from disabling it , Mozilla does n't even give users an option to enable it !
Their blocklist is all or nothing .
Why does n't that bother anyone here ?
One poster [ mozilla.org ] is very insightful : Many corporations have begun implementing Firefox and telling their users that it is an equally if not more capable but more secure browser .
For a subset of those corporations , the action of removing necessary tech without consent or a secure method for re-enabling it will result in the removal of the browser from the system completely .
It will be called a failed experiment .
The following day , sys-admins around the world will be left explaining to the non-enthusiast employees that the reversal came because certain business apps would not function in FF .
Those users will only hear that FF is not as capable.But perhaps the best thing about this entire issue , is that Mozilla did n't block the plugins until AFTER they were patched and the mechanism of the block is retarded .
Mozilla is claiming [ mozilla.com ] that Microsoft agreed to issuing the block of the affected plugins , and that might be true , but only to an extent .
Mozilla is currently blocking the plugins based on the name of the plugin , not the version , which means users who have installed the patched version of the plugs ( at this point almost everyone using Windows Update ) are still unable to use the plugins and have no way to re-enable them.So essentially , by issuing this patch , Mozilla is doing nothing but hurting its business customers .
Slashdotters can scratch their heads trying to figure out who uses these technologies , but the answer is a lot of businesses do .
This absolute , non-scriptable and non-changeable block of these plugins will just remind corporations that open source is n't ready for the big leagues and they should just stick with Microsoft and IE .
The sad thing is that if this kind of knee-jerk , carte-blanche blocking behavior becomes the norm for Mozilla , they will probably be right !
Taking this kind of control away from the users is simply unacceptable , doubly so for businesses.If you 're wondering what MS says about this , you might take a look at this [ technet.com ] : First we 'd like to make it clear that any customers that have applied the update associated with MS09-054 are protected , regardless of the attack vector .
And most customers need not take any action as they 'll receive this update automatically through Automatic Updates.So there it is -- pretty much everyone who has this update ( which was NOT installed " silently " , it is installed as part of the .NET framework which you agreed to install ) has also received the patch since both are distributed through Windows Update.All in all , what Mozilla has managed to do is damage what trust they had garnered with their users .
They have n't protected anyone from anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the addon did was to add a piece of text in useragent that told the website .NET version.
How do you manage to fuck up that?For anyone curious as to the real state of affairs behind this MS plugin issue, you might be interested in a few things.
For everyone else just enjoying a good anti-Microsoft circle-jerk, ignore this post.The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser.
They allow for XAML applications [wikipedia.org] to run in Firefox and ClickOnce [wikipedia.org] program distribution.
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case).
Isn't this a good thing?This is the bug [mozilla.org] in question.
There is a lot of interesting comment there, including the fact that while everyone is crying about Microsoft "secretly" adding the plugin and preventing users from disabling it, Mozilla doesn't even give users an option to enable it!
Their blocklist is all or nothing.
Why doesn't that bother anyone here?
One poster [mozilla.org] is very insightful:Many corporations have begun implementing Firefox and telling their users that it is an equally if not more capable but more secure browser.
For a subset of those corporations, the action of removing necessary tech without consent or a secure method for re-enabling it will result in the removal of the browser from the system completely.
It will be called a failed experiment.
The following day, sys-admins around the world will be left explaining to the non-enthusiast employees that the reversal came because certain business apps would not function in FF.
Those users will only hear that FF is not as capable.But perhaps the best thing about this entire issue, is that Mozilla didn't block the plugins until AFTER they were patched and the mechanism of the block is retarded.
Mozilla is claiming [mozilla.com] that Microsoft agreed to issuing the block of the affected plugins, and that might be true, but only to an extent.
Mozilla is currently blocking the plugins based on the name of the plugin, not the version, which means users who have installed the patched version of the plugs (at this point almost everyone using Windows Update) are still unable to use the plugins and have no way to re-enable them.So essentially, by issuing this patch, Mozilla is doing nothing but hurting its business customers.
Slashdotters can scratch their heads trying to figure out who uses these technologies, but the answer is a lot of businesses do.
This absolute, non-scriptable and non-changeable block of these plugins will just remind corporations that open source isn't ready for the big leagues and they should just stick with Microsoft and IE.
The sad thing is that if this kind of knee-jerk, carte-blanche blocking behavior becomes the norm for Mozilla, they will probably be right!
Taking this kind of control away from the users is simply unacceptable, doubly so for businesses.If you're wondering what MS says about this, you might take a look at this [technet.com]:First we'd like to make it clear that any customers that have applied the update associated with MS09-054 are protected, regardless of the attack vector.
And most customers need not take any action as they'll receive this update automatically through Automatic Updates.So there it is -- pretty much everyone who has this update (which was NOT installed "silently", it is installed as part of the .NET framework which you agreed to install) has also received the patch since both are distributed through Windows Update.All in all, what Mozilla has managed to do is damage what trust they had garnered with their users.
They haven't protected anyone from anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788323</id>
	<title>Re:Nuke it with regedit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255872420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe Google Pack's Spyware Doctor also identifies this key name and recommends quarantining it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Google Pack 's Spyware Doctor also identifies this key name and recommends quarantining it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Google Pack's Spyware Doctor also identifies this key name and recommends quarantining it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792237</id>
	<title>MS has patched the root cause....</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1255956900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....so when is Mozilla going to detect the presence of that batch and back off?  If it doesn't it runs the risk of attracting criticism for freezing out a direct competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....so when is Mozilla going to detect the presence of that batch and back off ?
If it does n't it runs the risk of attracting criticism for freezing out a direct competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....so when is Mozilla going to detect the presence of that batch and back off?
If it doesn't it runs the risk of attracting criticism for freezing out a direct competitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783753</id>
	<title>Re:Read the TFA, MS suggested this!</title>
	<author>Razalhague</author>
	<datestamp>1255876440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on.</p></div><p>Well gosh, that "unable-to-be-disabled" feature seems really quite stupid now, doesn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on.Well gosh , that " unable-to-be-disabled " feature seems really quite stupid now , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on.Well gosh, that "unable-to-be-disabled" feature seems really quite stupid now, doesn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783921</id>
	<title>Re:This is very annoying for me</title>
	<author>Dreadneck</author>
	<datestamp>1255878120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you go to about:config in firefox and toggle the value of extensions.blocklist.enabled from true to false and restart firefox then the plugins will work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go to about : config in firefox and toggle the value of extensions.blocklist.enabled from true to false and restart firefox then the plugins will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go to about:config in firefox and toggle the value of extensions.blocklist.enabled from true to false and restart firefox then the plugins will work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787093</id>
	<title>Re:Outrage</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1255861560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wheres the outrage from the users who always have a huge bitch when other "more evil" companies disable something on your system automaticall?</p></div><p>I'll show you where it is:  Open up your Firefox browser, surf to "about:config" and search for blocklist.  There ya go.  Oh wait, that's the place that allows you to turn off or fine tune Mozilla's blocklist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wheres the outrage from the users who always have a huge bitch when other " more evil " companies disable something on your system automaticall ? I 'll show you where it is : Open up your Firefox browser , surf to " about : config " and search for blocklist .
There ya go .
Oh wait , that 's the place that allows you to turn off or fine tune Mozilla 's blocklist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wheres the outrage from the users who always have a huge bitch when other "more evil" companies disable something on your system automaticall?I'll show you where it is:  Open up your Firefox browser, surf to "about:config" and search for blocklist.
There ya go.
Oh wait, that's the place that allows you to turn off or fine tune Mozilla's blocklist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29802827</id>
	<title>Batch file to remove the WPF plugin</title>
	<author>mattb47</author>
	<datestamp>1255961820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I&rsquo;ve coded a batch file to remove the Windows Presentation Foundation plugin (along with the accompanying Firefox<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET extension.)</p><p>My batch previously just removed the extension, but then I found out about this cruft as well.</p><p>This can then be easily added to a login script or such so you can remove it from multiple systems.</p><p>You can grab it from my blog here:<br>http://borchtech.blogspot.com/2009/10/updated-code-on-net-35-network.html</p><p>I hope this is useful to others...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I    ve coded a batch file to remove the Windows Presentation Foundation plugin ( along with the accompanying Firefox .NET extension .
) My batch previously just removed the extension , but then I found out about this cruft as well.This can then be easily added to a login script or such so you can remove it from multiple systems.You can grab it from my blog here : http : //borchtech.blogspot.com/2009/10/updated-code-on-net-35-network.htmlI hope this is useful to others.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I’ve coded a batch file to remove the Windows Presentation Foundation plugin (along with the accompanying Firefox .NET extension.
)My batch previously just removed the extension, but then I found out about this cruft as well.This can then be easily added to a login script or such so you can remove it from multiple systems.You can grab it from my blog here:http://borchtech.blogspot.com/2009/10/updated-code-on-net-35-network.htmlI hope this is useful to others...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783459</id>
	<title>It is happening you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255872780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is happening you know. Check out the fantastic Liunx mobile phone http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1532176/nokia-n900-internet-tablet-walk</p><p>The Nokia N900 is the MS/Apple killer par excellence, but as Linus Torvalds noted "Killing off Microsoft is just a side effect, not a goal".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is happening you know .
Check out the fantastic Liunx mobile phone http : //www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1532176/nokia-n900-internet-tablet-walkThe Nokia N900 is the MS/Apple killer par excellence , but as Linus Torvalds noted " Killing off Microsoft is just a side effect , not a goal " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is happening you know.
Check out the fantastic Liunx mobile phone http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1532176/nokia-n900-internet-tablet-walkThe Nokia N900 is the MS/Apple killer par excellence, but as Linus Torvalds noted "Killing off Microsoft is just a side effect, not a goal".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784835</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255886700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A better question is...</p><p>WHY is any addon allowed to not use the disable or uninstall features.  ever.</p><p>I'm used to shit sneaking into my windows machine.  But dammit.  You should at least let me disable or remove the crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A better question is...WHY is any addon allowed to not use the disable or uninstall features .
ever.I 'm used to shit sneaking into my windows machine .
But dammit .
You should at least let me disable or remove the crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better question is...WHY is any addon allowed to not use the disable or uninstall features.
ever.I'm used to shit sneaking into my windows machine.
But dammit.
You should at least let me disable or remove the crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784743</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>arth1</author>
	<datestamp>1255885800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even presuming you tell the truth, did they really agree that Mozilla should "patch" by removing <i>both</i> vulnerable <i>and</i> patched versions, deny the user an option to choose <b>not</b> to block, and prevent him from (re)installing a non-vulnerable version?</p><p>Or did you add all these steps yourself, after being told it's to remove the <i>vulnerable</i> plugins (implicitly with the end user's consent).</p><p>Sorry, no, I do not trust you.  You haven't given me a reason to.  Just because you're the enemy of my enemy doesn't make you my friend.  And that you continue to maintain the social illusion of this having absolutely nothing to do with making a small jab at Microsoft gives me a small incentive <i>not</i> to trust you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even presuming you tell the truth , did they really agree that Mozilla should " patch " by removing both vulnerable and patched versions , deny the user an option to choose not to block , and prevent him from ( re ) installing a non-vulnerable version ? Or did you add all these steps yourself , after being told it 's to remove the vulnerable plugins ( implicitly with the end user 's consent ) .Sorry , no , I do not trust you .
You have n't given me a reason to .
Just because you 're the enemy of my enemy does n't make you my friend .
And that you continue to maintain the social illusion of this having absolutely nothing to do with making a small jab at Microsoft gives me a small incentive not to trust you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even presuming you tell the truth, did they really agree that Mozilla should "patch" by removing both vulnerable and patched versions, deny the user an option to choose not to block, and prevent him from (re)installing a non-vulnerable version?Or did you add all these steps yourself, after being told it's to remove the vulnerable plugins (implicitly with the end user's consent).Sorry, no, I do not trust you.
You haven't given me a reason to.
Just because you're the enemy of my enemy doesn't make you my friend.
And that you continue to maintain the social illusion of this having absolutely nothing to do with making a small jab at Microsoft gives me a small incentive not to trust you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783681</id>
	<title>Re:Nuke it with regedit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255875600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You see how intuitive and user friendly that is?<br>I'm so glad I never need to help anybody keeping their Windows machines functioning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You see how intuitive and user friendly that is ? I 'm so glad I never need to help anybody keeping their Windows machines functioning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see how intuitive and user friendly that is?I'm so glad I never need to help anybody keeping their Windows machines functioning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787337</id>
	<title>Re:MS kinda overstepped its bounds on this one.</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1255863240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is the immediate reason for the block yes but afaict the way MS pushed it on a load of users who don't want or need it without the users informed consent was a major contributing factor.</p><p>If this addon and plugin had only been deployed in situations where it was actually needed then I strongly suspect mozilla would have taken a far less agressive approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is the immediate reason for the block yes but afaict the way MS pushed it on a load of users who do n't want or need it without the users informed consent was a major contributing factor.If this addon and plugin had only been deployed in situations where it was actually needed then I strongly suspect mozilla would have taken a far less agressive approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is the immediate reason for the block yes but afaict the way MS pushed it on a load of users who don't want or need it without the users informed consent was a major contributing factor.If this addon and plugin had only been deployed in situations where it was actually needed then I strongly suspect mozilla would have taken a far less agressive approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784647</id>
	<title>Re:Plugin-checker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255884900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Fricken' TFA Article. (Also an abandoned slogan for Coke!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Fricken ' TFA Article .
( Also an abandoned slogan for Coke !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Fricken' TFA Article.
(Also an abandoned slogan for Coke!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783469</id>
	<title>My surreal experience</title>
	<author>phozz bare</author>
	<datestamp>1255872840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last night I was browsing through the headlines on Slashdot's front page. At one point I came across the headline "Sneaky Microsoft Add-On Put Firefox Users At Risk" (story <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/10/16/189243/Sneaky-Microsoft-Add-On-Put-Firefox-Users-At-Risk" title="slashdot.org">here</a> [slashdot.org]). While I was reading the text underneath that headline, Firefox's prompt (indicating that it had detected the relevant plugin) popped up. It was so startling that I started wondering whether the browser was reading my mind! Weird stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last night I was browsing through the headlines on Slashdot 's front page .
At one point I came across the headline " Sneaky Microsoft Add-On Put Firefox Users At Risk " ( story here [ slashdot.org ] ) .
While I was reading the text underneath that headline , Firefox 's prompt ( indicating that it had detected the relevant plugin ) popped up .
It was so startling that I started wondering whether the browser was reading my mind !
Weird stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last night I was browsing through the headlines on Slashdot's front page.
At one point I came across the headline "Sneaky Microsoft Add-On Put Firefox Users At Risk" (story here [slashdot.org]).
While I was reading the text underneath that headline, Firefox's prompt (indicating that it had detected the relevant plugin) popped up.
It was so startling that I started wondering whether the browser was reading my mind!
Weird stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29794793</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255969980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser.  They allow for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible\_Application\_Markup\_Language" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">XAML applications</a> [wikipedia.org] to run in Firefox and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ClickOnce</a> [wikipedia.org] program distribution.  For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case).  Isn't this a good thing?</p></div><p>No it is not. IF I need XAML applications to run in my Firefox at all, I would want to go to the Firefox Extensions website to install it. I do not want, under ANY circumstances, for my software which I chose and installed, to be altered by any third party, without my express consent. How difficult is that concept to grasp?</p><p>The way it is done, i.e. installing their software stealthily, leads me to think that MS would like to make it a "compelling" business case to customers to adopt<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET because most every browser has it.</p><p>I am usually amused by MS antics, but this really pisses me off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser .
They allow for XAML applications [ wikipedia.org ] to run in Firefox and ClickOnce [ wikipedia.org ] program distribution .
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser , this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies ( .NET in this case ) .
Is n't this a good thing ? No it is not .
IF I need XAML applications to run in my Firefox at all , I would want to go to the Firefox Extensions website to install it .
I do not want , under ANY circumstances , for my software which I chose and installed , to be altered by any third party , without my express consent .
How difficult is that concept to grasp ? The way it is done , i.e .
installing their software stealthily , leads me to think that MS would like to make it a " compelling " business case to customers to adopt .NET because most every browser has it.I am usually amused by MS antics , but this really pisses me off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser.
They allow for XAML applications [wikipedia.org] to run in Firefox and ClickOnce [wikipedia.org] program distribution.
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case).
Isn't this a good thing?No it is not.
IF I need XAML applications to run in my Firefox at all, I would want to go to the Firefox Extensions website to install it.
I do not want, under ANY circumstances, for my software which I chose and installed, to be altered by any third party, without my express consent.
How difficult is that concept to grasp?The way it is done, i.e.
installing their software stealthily, leads me to think that MS would like to make it a "compelling" business case to customers to adopt .NET because most every browser has it.I am usually amused by MS antics, but this really pisses me off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790243</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1255888980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case). Isn't this a good thing?</em> </p><p>
In this case, providing access to MS-centric technologies <b>that hardly anyone is using</b>, and simply don't have any credibility among developers at the present time.   Microsoft <b>needs</b> FF users to have access to the technology for the technology to have a hope of their new<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET technologies attaining any traction.
</p><p>
Yes, I'm suggesting that XAML is in its infancy and not widely adopted by anyone.
On the other hand, the plugin is widespread, due to MS silently installing the plugin without user knowledge or informed consent.
</p><p> <em>So essentially, by issuing this patch, Mozilla is doing nothing but hurting its business customers. </em> </p><p>
It's not a patch, it's an update to a published blocklist.  Mozilla has no business customers that I know of, who pay for support of X copies of FF.   People who download free copies of FF for business use are not "business customers", are they?
</p><p>
Certainly they can use custom browser configurations and provide their own addon blocklists, by populating the browser configuration with a custom base URL, and serving up suitable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.XML files for all browser versions.    The blocklist and how it works are not a secret.    It is not as if this is the first time a plugin has been blocklisted due to security issues.
</p><p>
Mozilla is protecting its users who don't necessarily use Windows update, against a plugin that is not part of the browser, and was installed without users' control or knowledge.
</p><p>
Certainly a third-party plugin is not a supported component;  Mozilla doesn't have to fix third-party plugins, they can block them if there are issues.
</p><p>
Allowing the user to run a plugin with known stability or security issues is a bad idea, a compulsory blocklist (with URL schema that can be customized by IT) is a very good idea.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies ( .NET in this case ) .
Is n't this a good thing ?
In this case , providing access to MS-centric technologies that hardly anyone is using , and simply do n't have any credibility among developers at the present time .
Microsoft needs FF users to have access to the technology for the technology to have a hope of their new .NET technologies attaining any traction .
Yes , I 'm suggesting that XAML is in its infancy and not widely adopted by anyone .
On the other hand , the plugin is widespread , due to MS silently installing the plugin without user knowledge or informed consent .
So essentially , by issuing this patch , Mozilla is doing nothing but hurting its business customers .
It 's not a patch , it 's an update to a published blocklist .
Mozilla has no business customers that I know of , who pay for support of X copies of FF .
People who download free copies of FF for business use are not " business customers " , are they ?
Certainly they can use custom browser configurations and provide their own addon blocklists , by populating the browser configuration with a custom base URL , and serving up suitable .XML files for all browser versions .
The blocklist and how it works are not a secret .
It is not as if this is the first time a plugin has been blocklisted due to security issues .
Mozilla is protecting its users who do n't necessarily use Windows update , against a plugin that is not part of the browser , and was installed without users ' control or knowledge .
Certainly a third-party plugin is not a supported component ; Mozilla does n't have to fix third-party plugins , they can block them if there are issues .
Allowing the user to run a plugin with known stability or security issues is a bad idea , a compulsory blocklist ( with URL schema that can be customized by IT ) is a very good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case).
Isn't this a good thing?
In this case, providing access to MS-centric technologies that hardly anyone is using, and simply don't have any credibility among developers at the present time.
Microsoft needs FF users to have access to the technology for the technology to have a hope of their new .NET technologies attaining any traction.
Yes, I'm suggesting that XAML is in its infancy and not widely adopted by anyone.
On the other hand, the plugin is widespread, due to MS silently installing the plugin without user knowledge or informed consent.
So essentially, by issuing this patch, Mozilla is doing nothing but hurting its business customers.
It's not a patch, it's an update to a published blocklist.
Mozilla has no business customers that I know of, who pay for support of X copies of FF.
People who download free copies of FF for business use are not "business customers", are they?
Certainly they can use custom browser configurations and provide their own addon blocklists, by populating the browser configuration with a custom base URL, and serving up suitable .XML files for all browser versions.
The blocklist and how it works are not a secret.
It is not as if this is the first time a plugin has been blocklisted due to security issues.
Mozilla is protecting its users who don't necessarily use Windows update, against a plugin that is not part of the browser, and was installed without users' control or knowledge.
Certainly a third-party plugin is not a supported component;  Mozilla doesn't have to fix third-party plugins, they can block them if there are issues.
Allowing the user to run a plugin with known stability or security issues is a bad idea, a compulsory blocklist (with URL schema that can be customized by IT) is a very good idea.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373</id>
	<title>Oops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255871580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just checked my addons and whilst I don't have the Microsoft addon, I do have an AVG one which is disabled. Clicking on the more information link (https://en-gb.www.mozilla.com/en-GB/blocklist/) presents me with a page that says:</p><blockquote><div><p>en-gb.www.mozilla.com uses an invalid security certificate.<br>
<br>
The certificate is only valid for *.mozilla.com.<br>
<br>
(Error code: ssl\_error\_bad\_cert\_domain)</p></div></blockquote><p>Whilst it is nice to see they've done it, it's a shame that they didn't test the end to end user flow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just checked my addons and whilst I do n't have the Microsoft addon , I do have an AVG one which is disabled .
Clicking on the more information link ( https : //en-gb.www.mozilla.com/en-GB/blocklist/ ) presents me with a page that says : en-gb.www.mozilla.com uses an invalid security certificate .
The certificate is only valid for * .mozilla.com .
( Error code : ssl \ _error \ _bad \ _cert \ _domain ) Whilst it is nice to see they 've done it , it 's a shame that they did n't test the end to end user flow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just checked my addons and whilst I don't have the Microsoft addon, I do have an AVG one which is disabled.
Clicking on the more information link (https://en-gb.www.mozilla.com/en-GB/blocklist/) presents me with a page that says:en-gb.www.mozilla.com uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is only valid for *.mozilla.com.
(Error code: ssl\_error\_bad\_cert\_domain)Whilst it is nice to see they've done it, it's a shame that they didn't test the end to end user flow.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785955</id>
	<title>Bogus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255896180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft released a patch for the vulnerability on Tuesday. So basically they are blocking because there may be unpatched versions of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net system component that the plugin requires. Then this same logic should be applied to Flash and Acrobat which have vulnerabilites in older versions. Am I missing something here or is this the exact same situation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft released a patch for the vulnerability on Tuesday .
So basically they are blocking because there may be unpatched versions of the .net system component that the plugin requires .
Then this same logic should be applied to Flash and Acrobat which have vulnerabilites in older versions .
Am I missing something here or is this the exact same situation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft released a patch for the vulnerability on Tuesday.
So basically they are blocking because there may be unpatched versions of the .net system component that the plugin requires.
Then this same logic should be applied to Flash and Acrobat which have vulnerabilites in older versions.
Am I missing something here or is this the exact same situation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783877</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1255877520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe there were people that were 100\% anti kill-switch, but I don't think they represent everyone.  Just because something can be used for evil doesn't mean it's necessarily bad.  A knife that is used to cut fruit can cut people too.</p><p>What bothers me more though is the fact that a plug-in can prevent its own disabling or removal without an aggressive external technique.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe there were people that were 100 \ % anti kill-switch , but I do n't think they represent everyone .
Just because something can be used for evil does n't mean it 's necessarily bad .
A knife that is used to cut fruit can cut people too.What bothers me more though is the fact that a plug-in can prevent its own disabling or removal without an aggressive external technique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe there were people that were 100\% anti kill-switch, but I don't think they represent everyone.
Just because something can be used for evil doesn't mean it's necessarily bad.
A knife that is used to cut fruit can cut people too.What bothers me more though is the fact that a plug-in can prevent its own disabling or removal without an aggressive external technique.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784017</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255879080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I have to agree with that one. I really hope that there is a option (aka a "kill-switch") for that "kill-switch" in the Firefox settings dialog. Otherwise I would be very disappointed of those Nazi methods.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I have to agree with that one .
I really hope that there is a option ( aka a " kill-switch " ) for that " kill-switch " in the Firefox settings dialog .
Otherwise I would be very disappointed of those Nazi methods .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I have to agree with that one.
I really hope that there is a option (aka a "kill-switch") for that "kill-switch" in the Firefox settings dialog.
Otherwise I would be very disappointed of those Nazi methods.
:/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783489</id>
	<title>Re:MS kinda overstepped its bounds on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255873080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's nice to see the Mozilla folks say "NOPE, you...'re NOT doing this to our browser, now get lost"</p></div><p>You seem quite lost. They're not blocking it for that reason, but because it had a security vulnerability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to see the Mozilla folks say " NOPE , you... 're NOT doing this to our browser , now get lost " You seem quite lost .
They 're not blocking it for that reason , but because it had a security vulnerability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to see the Mozilla folks say "NOPE, you...'re NOT doing this to our browser, now get lost"You seem quite lost.
They're not blocking it for that reason, but because it had a security vulnerability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787847</id>
	<title>Re:While they're at it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255867680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add bittorrent's btDNA or whatever it is to that list. Installs without any permission request or notification whatsoever.</p><p>I think I see a need for a plugin blocker plugin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add bittorrent 's btDNA or whatever it is to that list .
Installs without any permission request or notification whatsoever.I think I see a need for a plugin blocker plugin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add bittorrent's btDNA or whatever it is to that list.
Installs without any permission request or notification whatsoever.I think I see a need for a plugin blocker plugin!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785021</id>
	<title>What the hell, people?..</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1255888680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though it has been exhaustively stated already, it bears repeating...so I'll repeat it: the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET plugin or extension (whatever it is) <b>does not allow users to disable or uninstall it via normal interfaces</b>. Basically, without Mozilla's patch, you have to do some file system &amp; registry spelunking to close this breach; like someone mentioned, that's not something the average user is going to look forward to, and for many is far beyond their scope of capabilities. To my knowledge, no other plugin or extension exhibits this bad behavior, nor are they foisted on the user via sleight-of-hand as a "security update." Furthermore, to those who balk that Mozilla can't differentiate between unpatched and patched versions, once again, this plugin came from MS. If it's <b>their</b> plugin for <b>their</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework, that is exclusive to <b>their</b> OS, wouldn't that sort of make it <b>their</b> responsibility to have it include version info, or some way to check, via the filesystem or registry details, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET file version numbers/installed ver info and report it back to firefox? Hell, wouldn't it be on them to ask the user if they want to install it, along with making it fully removable in the first place? How, precisely, should Mozilla, an entirely separate org who I don't imagine ever anticipated having such a wonky problem be created for their browser's extensions, handle this, if not via the patch they released? Why is everyone defending Bill &amp; Steve?
<br> <br>I think this was a real fumble for MS, and Mozilla took steps to prevent critical problems--don't know about the best steps, but at least they were quick to action. Imagine if this had not been done, and exploits for the problem started popping up like wildfire, or widespread browser/OS crashes became common; how many users would firefox lose, due to a problem entirely of someone else's making? Let's not get confused over who's the bad guy. MS has the most to gain from any perceived flaws in a competing product, and their track record isn't exactly one that shows overwhelming care and concern for the end user. Even if not malicious, and chances are it's not, it still is another mark of incompetence on the overall company that they're releasing flawed software and forgetting courtesies like asking the user if they actually want the changes, not to mention not allowing them to revert it without 'popping the hood'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though it has been exhaustively stated already , it bears repeating...so I 'll repeat it : the .NET plugin or extension ( whatever it is ) does not allow users to disable or uninstall it via normal interfaces .
Basically , without Mozilla 's patch , you have to do some file system &amp; registry spelunking to close this breach ; like someone mentioned , that 's not something the average user is going to look forward to , and for many is far beyond their scope of capabilities .
To my knowledge , no other plugin or extension exhibits this bad behavior , nor are they foisted on the user via sleight-of-hand as a " security update .
" Furthermore , to those who balk that Mozilla ca n't differentiate between unpatched and patched versions , once again , this plugin came from MS. If it 's their plugin for their .NET framework , that is exclusive to their OS , would n't that sort of make it their responsibility to have it include version info , or some way to check , via the filesystem or registry details , the .NET file version numbers/installed ver info and report it back to firefox ?
Hell , would n't it be on them to ask the user if they want to install it , along with making it fully removable in the first place ?
How , precisely , should Mozilla , an entirely separate org who I do n't imagine ever anticipated having such a wonky problem be created for their browser 's extensions , handle this , if not via the patch they released ?
Why is everyone defending Bill &amp; Steve ?
I think this was a real fumble for MS , and Mozilla took steps to prevent critical problems--do n't know about the best steps , but at least they were quick to action .
Imagine if this had not been done , and exploits for the problem started popping up like wildfire , or widespread browser/OS crashes became common ; how many users would firefox lose , due to a problem entirely of someone else 's making ?
Let 's not get confused over who 's the bad guy .
MS has the most to gain from any perceived flaws in a competing product , and their track record is n't exactly one that shows overwhelming care and concern for the end user .
Even if not malicious , and chances are it 's not , it still is another mark of incompetence on the overall company that they 're releasing flawed software and forgetting courtesies like asking the user if they actually want the changes , not to mention not allowing them to revert it without 'popping the hood' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though it has been exhaustively stated already, it bears repeating...so I'll repeat it: the .NET plugin or extension (whatever it is) does not allow users to disable or uninstall it via normal interfaces.
Basically, without Mozilla's patch, you have to do some file system &amp; registry spelunking to close this breach; like someone mentioned, that's not something the average user is going to look forward to, and for many is far beyond their scope of capabilities.
To my knowledge, no other plugin or extension exhibits this bad behavior, nor are they foisted on the user via sleight-of-hand as a "security update.
" Furthermore, to those who balk that Mozilla can't differentiate between unpatched and patched versions, once again, this plugin came from MS. If it's their plugin for their .NET framework, that is exclusive to their OS, wouldn't that sort of make it their responsibility to have it include version info, or some way to check, via the filesystem or registry details, the .NET file version numbers/installed ver info and report it back to firefox?
Hell, wouldn't it be on them to ask the user if they want to install it, along with making it fully removable in the first place?
How, precisely, should Mozilla, an entirely separate org who I don't imagine ever anticipated having such a wonky problem be created for their browser's extensions, handle this, if not via the patch they released?
Why is everyone defending Bill &amp; Steve?
I think this was a real fumble for MS, and Mozilla took steps to prevent critical problems--don't know about the best steps, but at least they were quick to action.
Imagine if this had not been done, and exploits for the problem started popping up like wildfire, or widespread browser/OS crashes became common; how many users would firefox lose, due to a problem entirely of someone else's making?
Let's not get confused over who's the bad guy.
MS has the most to gain from any perceived flaws in a competing product, and their track record isn't exactly one that shows overwhelming care and concern for the end user.
Even if not malicious, and chances are it's not, it still is another mark of incompetence on the overall company that they're releasing flawed software and forgetting courtesies like asking the user if they actually want the changes, not to mention not allowing them to revert it without 'popping the hood'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783541</id>
	<title>Re:Bad for Firefox in the long run?</title>
	<author>wgoodman</author>
	<datestamp>1255873920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>essentially it added an option to have pages install things without the user's input.. since apparently Mozilla users have been hounding MS for that ability for quite some time now. <br> <br>I was rather confused on seeing the dialogue box considering i manually uninstalled the security holes a long while ago.  they were no longer installed but i suppose it's nice that Mozilla wanted to be extra sure.    i miss having proper control of my system.  this is reminding me (on a larger scale) of the adblock vs noscript wars a while back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>essentially it added an option to have pages install things without the user 's input.. since apparently Mozilla users have been hounding MS for that ability for quite some time now .
I was rather confused on seeing the dialogue box considering i manually uninstalled the security holes a long while ago .
they were no longer installed but i suppose it 's nice that Mozilla wanted to be extra sure .
i miss having proper control of my system .
this is reminding me ( on a larger scale ) of the adblock vs noscript wars a while back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>essentially it added an option to have pages install things without the user's input.. since apparently Mozilla users have been hounding MS for that ability for quite some time now.
I was rather confused on seeing the dialogue box considering i manually uninstalled the security holes a long while ago.
they were no longer installed but i suppose it's nice that Mozilla wanted to be extra sure.
i miss having proper control of my system.
this is reminding me (on a larger scale) of the adblock vs noscript wars a while back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784505</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Anpheus</author>
	<datestamp>1255883460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But how much execution?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET supports sandboxed/isolated app domains.</p><p>Saying<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET has remote code execution is like saying Java and Flash do, unless you're specific.</p><p>I don't know yet what vulnerability, if any, existed, except that Firefox developers were annoyed Microsoft added another addon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how much execution ?
.NET supports sandboxed/isolated app domains.Saying .NET has remote code execution is like saying Java and Flash do , unless you 're specific.I do n't know yet what vulnerability , if any , existed , except that Firefox developers were annoyed Microsoft added another addon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how much execution?
.NET supports sandboxed/isolated app domains.Saying .NET has remote code execution is like saying Java and Flash do, unless you're specific.I don't know yet what vulnerability, if any, existed, except that Firefox developers were annoyed Microsoft added another addon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788901</id>
	<title>Re:Read the TFA, MS suggested this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255878480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can be disabled just fine, the thing you can't do is uninstall it.</p><p>Which really isn't to surprising, since you shouldn't be running Firefox as an administrator anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can be disabled just fine , the thing you ca n't do is uninstall it.Which really is n't to surprising , since you should n't be running Firefox as an administrator anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can be disabled just fine, the thing you can't do is uninstall it.Which really isn't to surprising, since you shouldn't be running Firefox as an administrator anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787911</id>
	<title>Re:Does anybody actually use these forced plugins?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1255868220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there any software which actually uses these<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Helper and Windows Presentation Foundation plugins?</p></div><p>Yes, though very few at the moment. Lessons of ActiveX and other proprietary technologies were learned.</p><p>It's somewhat more common on intranet, though (but that is a very different kettle of fish anyway).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do these expose an API to let javascript code interact with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework or something?</p></div><p>No.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do they let people write Firefox extensions in a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET language?</p></div><p>No.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do they let specially crafted Microsoft websites run<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET code in Firefox?</p></div><p>Kinda. It's largely equivalent to Java applets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any software which actually uses these .NET Helper and Windows Presentation Foundation plugins ? Yes , though very few at the moment .
Lessons of ActiveX and other proprietary technologies were learned.It 's somewhat more common on intranet , though ( but that is a very different kettle of fish anyway ) .Do these expose an API to let javascript code interact with the .NET framework or something ? No.Do they let people write Firefox extensions in a .NET language ? No.Do they let specially crafted Microsoft websites run .NET code in Firefox ? Kinda .
It 's largely equivalent to Java applets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any software which actually uses these .NET Helper and Windows Presentation Foundation plugins?Yes, though very few at the moment.
Lessons of ActiveX and other proprietary technologies were learned.It's somewhat more common on intranet, though (but that is a very different kettle of fish anyway).Do these expose an API to let javascript code interact with the .NET framework or something?No.Do they let people write Firefox extensions in a .NET language?No.Do they let specially crafted Microsoft websites run .NET code in Firefox?Kinda.
It's largely equivalent to Java applets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784103</id>
	<title>Re:This is very annoying for me</title>
	<author>Cl1mh4224rd</author>
	<datestamp>1255879800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thanks Mozilla, now I have to go back to IE to use 2df.</p></div><p>If you're annoyed enough, it might worth installing the IE Tab add-on: <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419" title="mozilla.org">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419</a> [mozilla.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks Mozilla , now I have to go back to IE to use 2df.If you 're annoyed enough , it might worth installing the IE Tab add-on : https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks Mozilla, now I have to go back to IE to use 2df.If you're annoyed enough, it might worth installing the IE Tab add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419 [mozilla.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792999</id>
	<title>Re:Oops</title>
	<author>sayno2quat</author>
	<datestamp>1255962120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(Per your signature), isn't the site slashdot.org, not slashdot.com? Unless there is a joke I am missing here...</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Per your signature ) , is n't the site slashdot.org , not slashdot.com ?
Unless there is a joke I am missing here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Per your signature), isn't the site slashdot.org, not slashdot.com?
Unless there is a joke I am missing here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788389</id>
	<title>Freedom of Power</title>
	<author>isochroma</author>
	<datestamp>1255873080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those who want to decide for themselves what code runs on their machine, rather than Mozilla corporation invading their computer and deciding for them:<p>
<a href="http://kb.mozillazine.org/Extensions.blocklist.enabled" title="mozillazine.org" rel="nofollow">http://kb.mozillazine.org/Extensions.blocklist.enabled</a> [mozillazine.org]
</p><p>
1. about:config<br>
2. extensions.blocklist.enabled: True -&gt; False<br>
3. Insurance: extensions.blocklist.url: delete string contents</p><p>
Done!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who want to decide for themselves what code runs on their machine , rather than Mozilla corporation invading their computer and deciding for them : http : //kb.mozillazine.org/Extensions.blocklist.enabled [ mozillazine.org ] 1. about : config 2. extensions.blocklist.enabled : True - &gt; False 3 .
Insurance : extensions.blocklist.url : delete string contents Done !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who want to decide for themselves what code runs on their machine, rather than Mozilla corporation invading their computer and deciding for them:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Extensions.blocklist.enabled [mozillazine.org]

1. about:config
2. extensions.blocklist.enabled: True -&gt; False
3.
Insurance: extensions.blocklist.url: delete string contents
Done!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783737</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>lseltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1255876260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BTW, I don't assume you lie, it's just that your argument doesn't make sense to me as you worded it. And <a href="http://shaver.off.net/diary/2009/10/16/net-framework-assistant-blocked-to-disarm-security-vulnerability/" title="off.net">in your own blog you state that "Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on."</a> [off.net] From everything I've read from Microsoft this is an overstatement. They advised disabling the add-on as a mitigation mechanism for those who had not applied the patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , I do n't assume you lie , it 's just that your argument does n't make sense to me as you worded it .
And in your own blog you state that " Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on .
" [ off.net ] From everything I 've read from Microsoft this is an overstatement .
They advised disabling the add-on as a mitigation mechanism for those who had not applied the patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, I don't assume you lie, it's just that your argument doesn't make sense to me as you worded it.
And in your own blog you state that "Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on.
" [off.net] From everything I've read from Microsoft this is an overstatement.
They advised disabling the add-on as a mitigation mechanism for those who had not applied the patch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786781</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>jbb999</author>
	<datestamp>1255859040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was using this and they disabled it so I can't use firefox any more.
Oh well, back to IE8 then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was using this and they disabled it so I ca n't use firefox any more .
Oh well , back to IE8 then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was using this and they disabled it so I can't use firefox any more.
Oh well, back to IE8 then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791161</id>
	<title>Re:MS kinda overstepped its bounds on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255943100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you're just an <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1408445&amp;cid=29791031" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">idiot</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're just an idiot [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're just an idiot [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255871160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the addon did was to add a piece of text in useragent that told the website<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET version. How do you manage to fuck up that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the addon did was to add a piece of text in useragent that told the website .NET version .
How do you manage to fuck up that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the addon did was to add a piece of text in useragent that told the website .NET version.
How do you manage to fuck up that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789193</id>
	<title>Re:Oops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255881720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly not a bug.  It works for the people testing it in the US<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly not a bug .
It works for the people testing it in the US : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly not a bug.
It works for the people testing it in the US :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Mike Shaver</author>
	<datestamp>1255874700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS09-054 is labelled as an Internet Explorer update, so it's not obvious that Firefox users need to apply it.  We're working with Microsoft on getting that fixed.

Microsoft did definitely agree to it; I'm the one they told, on the telephone, before I requested the block be pushed out.  I don't know why you think I was lying -- I didn't "imply" it, I flat out said that they agreed, which is the case.  Do I have a history of lying about such things?</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS09-054 is labelled as an Internet Explorer update , so it 's not obvious that Firefox users need to apply it .
We 're working with Microsoft on getting that fixed .
Microsoft did definitely agree to it ; I 'm the one they told , on the telephone , before I requested the block be pushed out .
I do n't know why you think I was lying -- I did n't " imply " it , I flat out said that they agreed , which is the case .
Do I have a history of lying about such things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS09-054 is labelled as an Internet Explorer update, so it's not obvious that Firefox users need to apply it.
We're working with Microsoft on getting that fixed.
Microsoft did definitely agree to it; I'm the one they told, on the telephone, before I requested the block be pushed out.
I don't know why you think I was lying -- I didn't "imply" it, I flat out said that they agreed, which is the case.
Do I have a history of lying about such things?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785079</id>
	<title>also with Flash!</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1255889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I updated Firefox, it said "you better update Flash", and so I went to update Flash and Adobe tried to insert a new plugin into my browser!</p><p>This seems like a poor bargain to me. Firefox pushes us to the Adobe site so we can update our buggy Adobe add on to be less insecure and Adobe takes the opportunity to put another add on in, which probably has its own bugs.</p><p>Anyway, I clicked no to that offer to install Adobe DLM, and somehow managed to install the new Flash anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I updated Firefox , it said " you better update Flash " , and so I went to update Flash and Adobe tried to insert a new plugin into my browser ! This seems like a poor bargain to me .
Firefox pushes us to the Adobe site so we can update our buggy Adobe add on to be less insecure and Adobe takes the opportunity to put another add on in , which probably has its own bugs.Anyway , I clicked no to that offer to install Adobe DLM , and somehow managed to install the new Flash anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I updated Firefox, it said "you better update Flash", and so I went to update Flash and Adobe tried to insert a new plugin into my browser!This seems like a poor bargain to me.
Firefox pushes us to the Adobe site so we can update our buggy Adobe add on to be less insecure and Adobe takes the opportunity to put another add on in, which probably has its own bugs.Anyway, I clicked no to that offer to install Adobe DLM, and somehow managed to install the new Flash anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785065</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1255889040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else than Microsoft installing plugins into browsers without users consents would have this product called a malaware. I think on this issue<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is quite polite with MS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else than Microsoft installing plugins into browsers without users consents would have this product called a malaware .
I think on this issue / .
is quite polite with MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else than Microsoft installing plugins into browsers without users consents would have this product called a malaware.
I think on this issue /.
is quite polite with MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784537</id>
	<title>Re:This is very annoying for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255883760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant and Windows Presentation Foundation, all versions, for all applications. Reason: remote code execution vulnerability (see bug 522777) [https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/blocklist/] </p></div><p>See that part about "remote code execution" ?  You really don't want that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant and Windows Presentation Foundation , all versions , for all applications .
Reason : remote code execution vulnerability ( see bug 522777 ) [ https : //www.mozilla.com/en-US/blocklist/ ] See that part about " remote code execution " ?
You really do n't want that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant and Windows Presentation Foundation, all versions, for all applications.
Reason: remote code execution vulnerability (see bug 522777) [https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/blocklist/] See that part about "remote code execution" ?
You really don't want that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785255</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1255890480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...</p></div></blockquote><p>I love the [highly rated] responses to your question, which amount to "fuck Microsoft, fuck Microsoft, fuck Microsoft", without actually addressing the issue you raise.  It just highlights once again how the majority of Slashdot is two faced when it comes to...  just about any issue.  Mozilla is in the same category as Google, they simply cannot do wrong in the eyes of Slashdot.  "Two legs bad, for legs good".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches , and certainly was n't aware that there were any built into Firefox...I love the [ highly rated ] responses to your question , which amount to " fuck Microsoft , fuck Microsoft , fuck Microsoft " , without actually addressing the issue you raise .
It just highlights once again how the majority of Slashdot is two faced when it comes to... just about any issue .
Mozilla is in the same category as Google , they simply can not do wrong in the eyes of Slashdot .
" Two legs bad , for legs good " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...I love the [highly rated] responses to your question, which amount to "fuck Microsoft, fuck Microsoft, fuck Microsoft", without actually addressing the issue you raise.
It just highlights once again how the majority of Slashdot is two faced when it comes to...  just about any issue.
Mozilla is in the same category as Google, they simply cannot do wrong in the eyes of Slashdot.
"Two legs bad, for legs good".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789203</id>
	<title>Re:While they're at it...</title>
	<author>MojoStan</author>
	<datestamp>1255881780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That reminds me...
<p>
For those who updated the Windows version of Adobe Reader (version 9.2 arrived last week), note that the update enables (or re-enables) AdobeARM.exe and Reader\_sl.exe (Speed Launcher) as Windows startup programs without asking or giving you the option of not installing/enabling.
</p><p>
I can confirm that they can be disabled in Windows 2000 and XP using <a href="http://www.ccleaner.com/" title="ccleaner.com">CCleaner</a> [ccleaner.com]. For those who don't have or want that great utility, I'm sure they can also be disabled in msconfig (Run...) and Windows Defender.
</p><p>
And yes, I know about Foxit Reader and other alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That reminds me.. . For those who updated the Windows version of Adobe Reader ( version 9.2 arrived last week ) , note that the update enables ( or re-enables ) AdobeARM.exe and Reader \ _sl.exe ( Speed Launcher ) as Windows startup programs without asking or giving you the option of not installing/enabling .
I can confirm that they can be disabled in Windows 2000 and XP using CCleaner [ ccleaner.com ] .
For those who do n't have or want that great utility , I 'm sure they can also be disabled in msconfig ( Run... ) and Windows Defender .
And yes , I know about Foxit Reader and other alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That reminds me...

For those who updated the Windows version of Adobe Reader (version 9.2 arrived last week), note that the update enables (or re-enables) AdobeARM.exe and Reader\_sl.exe (Speed Launcher) as Windows startup programs without asking or giving you the option of not installing/enabling.
I can confirm that they can be disabled in Windows 2000 and XP using CCleaner [ccleaner.com].
For those who don't have or want that great utility, I'm sure they can also be disabled in msconfig (Run...) and Windows Defender.
And yes, I know about Foxit Reader and other alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359</id>
	<title>How about just disabling Microsoft?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255871400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much more effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much more effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much more effective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784905</id>
	<title>correct decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255887300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who makes web pages that require a plugin, is making non-platform agnostic web pages, and is clearly an incompetent web developer!<br>Such a plugin doesn't shouldn't even exist, so who cares if it is gone? I'm just pleased that Mozilla made the correct decision to shutdown this broken mess, before it does real damage. Personally, I think this type of plugin should be blocked for good, since all it does is break web interoperability by encouraging poor developers/stupid people to (presumably) unknowingly write broken web apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who makes web pages that require a plugin , is making non-platform agnostic web pages , and is clearly an incompetent web developer ! Such a plugin does n't should n't even exist , so who cares if it is gone ?
I 'm just pleased that Mozilla made the correct decision to shutdown this broken mess , before it does real damage .
Personally , I think this type of plugin should be blocked for good , since all it does is break web interoperability by encouraging poor developers/stupid people to ( presumably ) unknowingly write broken web apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who makes web pages that require a plugin, is making non-platform agnostic web pages, and is clearly an incompetent web developer!Such a plugin doesn't shouldn't even exist, so who cares if it is gone?
I'm just pleased that Mozilla made the correct decision to shutdown this broken mess, before it does real damage.
Personally, I think this type of plugin should be blocked for good, since all it does is break web interoperability by encouraging poor developers/stupid people to (presumably) unknowingly write broken web apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783743</id>
	<title>Is There a Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>Mad Hamster</author>
	<datestamp>1255876320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>After last Patch Tuesday (yes, this is a confession I do have some Windows boxes), Firefox on my systems developed an issue with pages displaying in sort of a text-only mode when using the Refresh button(1). Page load times were also longer than usual. Those issues disappeared immediately once Mozilla's block of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET addon &amp; the WPF plugin arrived.<br>
<br>
This taken together with the fact that Microsoft appears to have patched the vulnerabilities before Mozilla put the block in effect makes me wonder if there are bits of the story which have not been made public.<br>
<br>
After all the vulnerability has been known to Microsoft for severeal motbhs, but kept secret until they released a patch. Of course it could just be Mozilla reacting to being kept in the dark about the vulnerability.<br>
<br>
(1) Well I also run NoScript, so it may be there was a conflict of some kind with that vs. the Microsoft thingies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After last Patch Tuesday ( yes , this is a confession I do have some Windows boxes ) , Firefox on my systems developed an issue with pages displaying in sort of a text-only mode when using the Refresh button ( 1 ) .
Page load times were also longer than usual .
Those issues disappeared immediately once Mozilla 's block of the .NET addon &amp; the WPF plugin arrived .
This taken together with the fact that Microsoft appears to have patched the vulnerabilities before Mozilla put the block in effect makes me wonder if there are bits of the story which have not been made public .
After all the vulnerability has been known to Microsoft for severeal motbhs , but kept secret until they released a patch .
Of course it could just be Mozilla reacting to being kept in the dark about the vulnerability .
( 1 ) Well I also run NoScript , so it may be there was a conflict of some kind with that vs. the Microsoft thingies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After last Patch Tuesday (yes, this is a confession I do have some Windows boxes), Firefox on my systems developed an issue with pages displaying in sort of a text-only mode when using the Refresh button(1).
Page load times were also longer than usual.
Those issues disappeared immediately once Mozilla's block of the .NET addon &amp; the WPF plugin arrived.
This taken together with the fact that Microsoft appears to have patched the vulnerabilities before Mozilla put the block in effect makes me wonder if there are bits of the story which have not been made public.
After all the vulnerability has been known to Microsoft for severeal motbhs, but kept secret until they released a patch.
Of course it could just be Mozilla reacting to being kept in the dark about the vulnerability.
(1) Well I also run NoScript, so it may be there was a conflict of some kind with that vs. the Microsoft thingies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29795325</id>
	<title>Re:How about just disabling Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Joey Vegetables</author>
	<datestamp>1255972260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't ya RTFM???  Just set your ARCH to ~x86 and emerge www-misc/disable-mafia$oft-plugin-crapola-0.4428-r1.ebuild.  With all the required deps it should take no more than a week, assuming at least a quad-core machine and that you're using distcc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't ya RTFM ? ? ?
Just set your ARCH to ~ x86 and emerge www-misc/disable-mafia $ oft-plugin-crapola-0.4428-r1.ebuild .
With all the required deps it should take no more than a week , assuming at least a quad-core machine and that you 're using distcc .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't ya RTFM???
Just set your ARCH to ~x86 and emerge www-misc/disable-mafia$oft-plugin-crapola-0.4428-r1.ebuild.
With all the required deps it should take no more than a week, assuming at least a quad-core machine and that you're using distcc.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261</id>
	<title>Re:MS kinda overstepped its bounds on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255881060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A vulnerability which has already been patched. I use this functionality on over 100+ machines at the office. I've already deployed the patch. As far as I can tell, there's no easy way for me to disable the block list. I'm going to get into work tomorrow and switch 100+ boxes back to IE, if they don't reverse it. And I won't be switching them back to FF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A vulnerability which has already been patched .
I use this functionality on over 100 + machines at the office .
I 've already deployed the patch .
As far as I can tell , there 's no easy way for me to disable the block list .
I 'm going to get into work tomorrow and switch 100 + boxes back to IE , if they do n't reverse it .
And I wo n't be switching them back to FF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vulnerability which has already been patched.
I use this functionality on over 100+ machines at the office.
I've already deployed the patch.
As far as I can tell, there's no easy way for me to disable the block list.
I'm going to get into work tomorrow and switch 100+ boxes back to IE, if they don't reverse it.
And I won't be switching them back to FF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785859</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1255895640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Does older versions of Flash and Java.</p><p>You Don't see them blacklisting older versions of Flash or Java. The most they have done so far is tell you your flash is out of date, which granny promply ignroes and two days later calles her grandson asking why this newfangled Windows Enterprise Defender is telling her she got 50 viruses on her pc even though she paid $80 for it to remove them.</p><p>I don't have a problem with Firefox disabling plugins with security issues, but they sure as hell better be consistant about it. Especially when other plugins (Especially Flash) have a much more horrible security record and policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Does older versions of Flash and Java.You Do n't see them blacklisting older versions of Flash or Java .
The most they have done so far is tell you your flash is out of date , which granny promply ignroes and two days later calles her grandson asking why this newfangled Windows Enterprise Defender is telling her she got 50 viruses on her pc even though she paid $ 80 for it to remove them.I do n't have a problem with Firefox disabling plugins with security issues , but they sure as hell better be consistant about it .
Especially when other plugins ( Especially Flash ) have a much more horrible security record and policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Does older versions of Flash and Java.You Don't see them blacklisting older versions of Flash or Java.
The most they have done so far is tell you your flash is out of date, which granny promply ignroes and two days later calles her grandson asking why this newfangled Windows Enterprise Defender is telling her she got 50 viruses on her pc even though she paid $80 for it to remove them.I don't have a problem with Firefox disabling plugins with security issues, but they sure as hell better be consistant about it.
Especially when other plugins (Especially Flash) have a much more horrible security record and policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785559</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255893360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do I have a history of lying about such things?</p></div><p>To put it simply, <b>yes</b>.  To put it more complexly, blocking something that's already been patched is a huge pain in the ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I have a history of lying about such things ? To put it simply , yes .
To put it more complexly , blocking something that 's already been patched is a huge pain in the ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I have a history of lying about such things?To put it simply, yes.
To put it more complexly, blocking something that's already been patched is a huge pain in the ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787037</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1255861260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner."</p></div><p>Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.</p><p>That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...</p></div><p>Well, since you asked I'll describe the order of priorities of what we are against:<br>
&nbsp; <br>1. Installing software without our consent, that includes sneaking in software in methods that classify as "gray zones". The ask.com bar is a good example of this, and also the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework.<br>2. Kill-switches<br>
&nbsp; <br>So you see, as described above, the installation of such applications is far more dangerous than the kill-switch. Also since this kill-switch can be turned off. If you don't think MS did anything wrong, then let me ask you this: why are so many people angry with this installation? For those of you who installed IE7 or IE8 on XP through Windows update, do you remember the EULA that popped up after the download and before the installation? Wouldn't it had been completely acceptable if such a screen would have showed for this as well? Since ultimately this was something new for Windows update, never before had it tampered with Firefox, so people -- don't fucking pretend it was a harmless and innocent move.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , Mozilla team , for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner .
" Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on / .
if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches , and certainly was n't aware that there were any built into Firefox...Well , since you asked I 'll describe the order of priorities of what we are against :   1 .
Installing software without our consent , that includes sneaking in software in methods that classify as " gray zones " .
The ask.com bar is a good example of this , and also the .NET framework.2 .
Kill-switches   So you see , as described above , the installation of such applications is far more dangerous than the kill-switch .
Also since this kill-switch can be turned off .
If you do n't think MS did anything wrong , then let me ask you this : why are so many people angry with this installation ?
For those of you who installed IE7 or IE8 on XP through Windows update , do you remember the EULA that popped up after the download and before the installation ?
Would n't it had been completely acceptable if such a screen would have showed for this as well ?
Since ultimately this was something new for Windows update , never before had it tampered with Firefox , so people -- do n't fucking pretend it was a harmless and innocent move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner.
"Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on /.
if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...Well, since you asked I'll describe the order of priorities of what we are against:
  1.
Installing software without our consent, that includes sneaking in software in methods that classify as "gray zones".
The ask.com bar is a good example of this, and also the .NET framework.2.
Kill-switches
  So you see, as described above, the installation of such applications is far more dangerous than the kill-switch.
Also since this kill-switch can be turned off.
If you don't think MS did anything wrong, then let me ask you this: why are so many people angry with this installation?
For those of you who installed IE7 or IE8 on XP through Windows update, do you remember the EULA that popped up after the download and before the installation?
Wouldn't it had been completely acceptable if such a screen would have showed for this as well?
Since ultimately this was something new for Windows update, never before had it tampered with Firefox, so people -- don't fucking pretend it was a harmless and innocent move.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786833</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255859520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much everyone..<br>Except corporations that block updates because they might break their internal applications.<br>Except all the pirated copies that don't get updates.<br>If you don't think these are a big share of the market, just look at any browser market share stats for how long it's taking for IE6 and 7 to die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much everyone..Except corporations that block updates because they might break their internal applications.Except all the pirated copies that do n't get updates.If you do n't think these are a big share of the market , just look at any browser market share stats for how long it 's taking for IE6 and 7 to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much everyone..Except corporations that block updates because they might break their internal applications.Except all the pirated copies that don't get updates.If you don't think these are a big share of the market, just look at any browser market share stats for how long it's taking for IE6 and 7 to die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790869</id>
	<title>MS didn't put any version on their plugin!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255895220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS didn't put any versioning information on their plug-in, so it's their own damn fault that the Firefox team had to disable it shotgun style! MS's fix was to an underlying OS facility on which the plugin depended -- Firefox had no way to see that update had occurred. Totally MS's screw-up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS did n't put any versioning information on their plug-in , so it 's their own damn fault that the Firefox team had to disable it shotgun style !
MS 's fix was to an underlying OS facility on which the plugin depended -- Firefox had no way to see that update had occurred .
Totally MS 's screw-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS didn't put any versioning information on their plug-in, so it's their own damn fault that the Firefox team had to disable it shotgun style!
MS's fix was to an underlying OS facility on which the plugin depended -- Firefox had no way to see that update had occurred.
Totally MS's screw-up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786853</id>
	<title>The Real Question is...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1255859700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real question is: what took them so long?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is : what took them so long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is: what took them so long?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784337</id>
	<title>Re:This is very annoying for me</title>
	<author>LeRaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1255881780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2df is just a bloated front-end lobby system for nFBA. It's not necessary to play games with people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2df is just a bloated front-end lobby system for nFBA .
It 's not necessary to play games with people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2df is just a bloated front-end lobby system for nFBA.
It's not necessary to play games with people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787769</id>
	<title>What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255866720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox IS a full spyware system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox IS a full spyware system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox IS a full spyware system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790597</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason why they want to hack user agen</title>
	<author>starfire83</author>
	<datestamp>1255892400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you prefer Java over, well, anything? I have not run into any well-programmed business-class Java program that doesn't either: crash, runs slow as hell, or will not run without a specific version of the Java runtimes installed. Anything is better than Java, imo. Don't get me started on some of the Avaya Java apps. Ugh the nightmares.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you prefer Java over , well , anything ?
I have not run into any well-programmed business-class Java program that does n't either : crash , runs slow as hell , or will not run without a specific version of the Java runtimes installed .
Anything is better than Java , imo .
Do n't get me started on some of the Avaya Java apps .
Ugh the nightmares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you prefer Java over, well, anything?
I have not run into any well-programmed business-class Java program that doesn't either: crash, runs slow as hell, or will not run without a specific version of the Java runtimes installed.
Anything is better than Java, imo.
Don't get me started on some of the Avaya Java apps.
Ugh the nightmares.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784773</id>
	<title>Posting to undo moderation</title>
	<author>wampus</author>
	<datestamp>1255886160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FIX THE STUPID FUCKING MODERATION INTERFACE!</p><p>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.<br>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.<br>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.</p><p>I AM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FIX THE STUPID FUCKING MODERATION INTERFACE ! Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING.Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING.Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING.I AM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FIX THE STUPID FUCKING MODERATION INTERFACE!Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.I AM!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783475</id>
	<title>.NET is enabled for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255872900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's because I keep Windows updated and don't need Firefox to try and protect me from being an idiot.</p><p>Just to be clear, I use Firefox, it didn't disable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. Is it because I keep Windows updated? Probably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because I keep Windows updated and do n't need Firefox to try and protect me from being an idiot.Just to be clear , I use Firefox , it did n't disable .NET .
Is it because I keep Windows updated ?
Probably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because I keep Windows updated and don't need Firefox to try and protect me from being an idiot.Just to be clear, I use Firefox, it didn't disable .NET.
Is it because I keep Windows updated?
Probably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793</id>
	<title>While they're at it...</title>
	<author>wigle</author>
	<datestamp>1255876740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should also disable the Adobe Download Manager (Adobe DLM). For any of you that have downloaded Adobe Reader 9 (with Firefox) recently, you would have noticed that they make you install a Firefox add-on instead of just linking you to the binary. <p>It's proprietary and full of ads! Just what I wanted, an extension that checks for updates of my Adobe Reader software.  Uninstalled. The Firefox team should send a message. Firefox add-ons are not yours to take over like the Windows startup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should also disable the Adobe Download Manager ( Adobe DLM ) .
For any of you that have downloaded Adobe Reader 9 ( with Firefox ) recently , you would have noticed that they make you install a Firefox add-on instead of just linking you to the binary .
It 's proprietary and full of ads !
Just what I wanted , an extension that checks for updates of my Adobe Reader software .
Uninstalled. The Firefox team should send a message .
Firefox add-ons are not yours to take over like the Windows startup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should also disable the Adobe Download Manager (Adobe DLM).
For any of you that have downloaded Adobe Reader 9 (with Firefox) recently, you would have noticed that they make you install a Firefox add-on instead of just linking you to the binary.
It's proprietary and full of ads!
Just what I wanted, an extension that checks for updates of my Adobe Reader software.
Uninstalled. The Firefox team should send a message.
Firefox add-ons are not yours to take over like the Windows startup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786807</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>raddude99</author>
	<datestamp>1255859340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser. They allow for XAML applications [wikipedia.org] to run in Firefox and ClickOnce [wikipedia.org] program distribution. For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case). Isn't this a good thing?</p></div><p>To answer your question, No, it is in fact a bad thing. This is another instance of a typical microsoft strategy called "Embrace - Extend - Extinguish". To see how this works see the comment from the poster below:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> I have over 100+ boxes at work that depend on this plugin. When I get into work tomorrow, if they're not working (they run FF), then I'm not going to have much choice but to switch back to IE, am I?</p></div><p>Microsoft have embraced Firefox by writing software for it, Extended it's functionality to add support for their own proprietary "standards" and now they are trying to extinguish Firefox by forcing Mozilla to remove a plugin that some users have come to rely on. If microsoft were serious about adding functionality to Firefox then they would have contributed source code to this open source project. One good thing has come from this though, the rug has been pulled from under this plugin quite early, probably before many users have become dependent on it, because it was only a matter of time (probably a few years) before microsoft withdrew this plugin themselves in an attempt to force users back to IE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser .
They allow for XAML applications [ wikipedia.org ] to run in Firefox and ClickOnce [ wikipedia.org ] program distribution .
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser , this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies ( .NET in this case ) .
Is n't this a good thing ? To answer your question , No , it is in fact a bad thing .
This is another instance of a typical microsoft strategy called " Embrace - Extend - Extinguish " .
To see how this works see the comment from the poster below : I have over 100 + boxes at work that depend on this plugin .
When I get into work tomorrow , if they 're not working ( they run FF ) , then I 'm not going to have much choice but to switch back to IE , am I ? Microsoft have embraced Firefox by writing software for it , Extended it 's functionality to add support for their own proprietary " standards " and now they are trying to extinguish Firefox by forcing Mozilla to remove a plugin that some users have come to rely on .
If microsoft were serious about adding functionality to Firefox then they would have contributed source code to this open source project .
One good thing has come from this though , the rug has been pulled from under this plugin quite early , probably before many users have become dependent on it , because it was only a matter of time ( probably a few years ) before microsoft withdrew this plugin themselves in an attempt to force users back to IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser.
They allow for XAML applications [wikipedia.org] to run in Firefox and ClickOnce [wikipedia.org] program distribution.
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case).
Isn't this a good thing?To answer your question, No, it is in fact a bad thing.
This is another instance of a typical microsoft strategy called "Embrace - Extend - Extinguish".
To see how this works see the comment from the poster below: I have over 100+ boxes at work that depend on this plugin.
When I get into work tomorrow, if they're not working (they run FF), then I'm not going to have much choice but to switch back to IE, am I?Microsoft have embraced Firefox by writing software for it, Extended it's functionality to add support for their own proprietary "standards" and now they are trying to extinguish Firefox by forcing Mozilla to remove a plugin that some users have come to rely on.
If microsoft were serious about adding functionality to Firefox then they would have contributed source code to this open source project.
One good thing has come from this though, the rug has been pulled from under this plugin quite early, probably before many users have become dependent on it, because it was only a matter of time (probably a few years) before microsoft withdrew this plugin themselves in an attempt to force users back to IE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29813561</id>
	<title>Re:Oops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256029920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop saying "whilst" you neckbearded goon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop saying " whilst " you neckbearded goon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop saying "whilst" you neckbearded goon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485</id>
	<title>Nuke it with regedit...</title>
	<author>Dark$ide</author>
	<datestamp>1255873020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For x86 machines, Go to the folder HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE &gt; SOFTWARE &gt; Mozilla &gt; Firefox &gt; Extensions<p>
For x64 machines, Go to the folder HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE &gt; SOFTWARE &gt; Wow6432Node &gt; Mozilla &gt; Firefox &gt; Extensions</p><p>
Delete key name '{20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b}'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For x86 machines , Go to the folder HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE &gt; SOFTWARE &gt; Mozilla &gt; Firefox &gt; Extensions For x64 machines , Go to the folder HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE &gt; SOFTWARE &gt; Wow6432Node &gt; Mozilla &gt; Firefox &gt; Extensions Delete key name ' { 20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b } '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For x86 machines, Go to the folder HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE &gt; SOFTWARE &gt; Mozilla &gt; Firefox &gt; Extensions
For x64 machines, Go to the folder HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE &gt; SOFTWARE &gt; Wow6432Node &gt; Mozilla &gt; Firefox &gt; Extensions
Delete key name '{20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b}'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786365</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason why they want to hack user agen</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1255899480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While some slashdotters think otherwise, Java/Windows install base is huge thanks to couple of very popular apps and tiny games. Since companies these days looks for multi platform, multi arch; MS needed to show that their herd has been installed/infected by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET too.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Coulda <b>swore</b> Windows was so popular because it shipped on just about <b>everything</b> computer-related back in the day, and still does to this day for desktop &amp; laptops, and those popular apps found homes <b>because</b> of its wide spread distribution. Most commercial app writers write to Windows because it's <b>out there</b>. If Linux were to have the same market penetration, the commercial app writers would be writing to Linux with ports to OS-X.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While some slashdotters think otherwise , Java/Windows install base is huge thanks to couple of very popular apps and tiny games .
Since companies these days looks for multi platform , multi arch ; MS needed to show that their herd has been installed/infected by .NET too .
Coulda swore Windows was so popular because it shipped on just about everything computer-related back in the day , and still does to this day for desktop &amp; laptops , and those popular apps found homes because of its wide spread distribution .
Most commercial app writers write to Windows because it 's out there .
If Linux were to have the same market penetration , the commercial app writers would be writing to Linux with ports to OS-X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While some slashdotters think otherwise, Java/Windows install base is huge thanks to couple of very popular apps and tiny games.
Since companies these days looks for multi platform, multi arch; MS needed to show that their herd has been installed/infected by .NET too.
Coulda swore Windows was so popular because it shipped on just about everything computer-related back in the day, and still does to this day for desktop &amp; laptops, and those popular apps found homes because of its wide spread distribution.
Most commercial app writers write to Windows because it's out there.
If Linux were to have the same market penetration, the commercial app writers would be writing to Linux with ports to OS-X.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29825033</id>
	<title>Re:Invalid certificate - no site</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256147640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason it only gives you 'Check Certificate' and 'Abort' is because they want to to at least look at the reason the certificate isn't valid before you decide to go ahead.  If you actually clicked on 'Check certificate' you would be presented with information from the certificate and an option to add an exception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it only gives you 'Check Certificate ' and 'Abort ' is because they want to to at least look at the reason the certificate is n't valid before you decide to go ahead .
If you actually clicked on 'Check certificate ' you would be presented with information from the certificate and an option to add an exception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason it only gives you 'Check Certificate' and 'Abort' is because they want to to at least look at the reason the certificate isn't valid before you decide to go ahead.
If you actually clicked on 'Check certificate' you would be presented with information from the certificate and an option to add an exception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787205</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1255862280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the real moral here is to use Java rather than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>In all seriousness, it's only a matter of time before more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net exploits are discovered. Java is the more open solution, with a better security track record. <i>*shudder*</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real moral here is to use Java rather than .net !
: PIn all seriousness , it 's only a matter of time before more .net exploits are discovered .
Java is the more open solution , with a better security track record .
* shudder *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real moral here is to use Java rather than .net!
:PIn all seriousness, it's only a matter of time before more .net exploits are discovered.
Java is the more open solution, with a better security track record.
*shudder*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786883</id>
	<title>It's amazing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255859940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amazing that Microsoft continue to release crap like this, indeed force it on users, whilst at the same time complaining that things like <a href="http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google Chrome Frame</a> [google.com] is a serious security concern and crap like this needs to be stopped...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing that Microsoft continue to release crap like this , indeed force it on users , whilst at the same time complaining that things like Google Chrome Frame [ google.com ] is a serious security concern and crap like this needs to be stopped.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing that Microsoft continue to release crap like this, indeed force it on users, whilst at the same time complaining that things like Google Chrome Frame [google.com] is a serious security concern and crap like this needs to be stopped...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792067</id>
	<title>IE for an IE...</title>
	<author>PensivePeter</author>
	<datestamp>1255955160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... I'd love Microsoft to respond and block the PITA updaters from Sun, Adobe and others that regularly screw up a perfectly working and secure configuration on Windows (Vista and 7), insisting on my attention despite being told where to get off and in any case requiring admin privileges to just go online and download even more bloatware.<br>
And then they whine because MSFT are making it more difficult. It's as if they're saying "please make your OS more flexible so that we can still run our badly designed software..."<br>
Oh wait, I forgot, that's a business model...</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I 'd love Microsoft to respond and block the PITA updaters from Sun , Adobe and others that regularly screw up a perfectly working and secure configuration on Windows ( Vista and 7 ) , insisting on my attention despite being told where to get off and in any case requiring admin privileges to just go online and download even more bloatware .
And then they whine because MSFT are making it more difficult .
It 's as if they 're saying " please make your OS more flexible so that we can still run our badly designed software... " Oh wait , I forgot , that 's a business model.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I'd love Microsoft to respond and block the PITA updaters from Sun, Adobe and others that regularly screw up a perfectly working and secure configuration on Windows (Vista and 7), insisting on my attention despite being told where to get off and in any case requiring admin privileges to just go online and download even more bloatware.
And then they whine because MSFT are making it more difficult.
It's as if they're saying "please make your OS more flexible so that we can still run our badly designed software..."
Oh wait, I forgot, that's a business model...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784711</id>
	<title>Thanks Microsoft!</title>
	<author>tomer</author>
	<datestamp>1255885440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks Microsoft for not pushing Silverlight plugin to every Windows box and enabling it on both Firefox and Internet Explorer.</p><p>Thanks YOU for creating Operating Systems not controlled by Microsoft (such as Linux).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks Microsoft for not pushing Silverlight plugin to every Windows box and enabling it on both Firefox and Internet Explorer.Thanks YOU for creating Operating Systems not controlled by Microsoft ( such as Linux ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks Microsoft for not pushing Silverlight plugin to every Windows box and enabling it on both Firefox and Internet Explorer.Thanks YOU for creating Operating Systems not controlled by Microsoft (such as Linux).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788629</id>
	<title>Re:Bad for Firefox in the long run?</title>
	<author>zero0ne</author>
	<datestamp>1255875540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? You have to \_walk around\_ to 100+ machines to uninstall an application?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
You have to \ _walk around \ _ to 100 + machines to uninstall an application ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
You have to \_walk around\_ to 100+ machines to uninstall an application?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790655</id>
	<title>Re:Plugin-checker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255892820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He probably likes to eat at The La Trattoria...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He probably likes to eat at The La Trattoria.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He probably likes to eat at The La Trattoria...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29819449</id>
	<title>The back and forth not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This back-and-forth between Microsoft and Firefox is NOT helping debug Firefox on Vista. Example:<br>
&nbsp; http://annoyances-resolved.blogspot.com/2009/10/firefox-vista-close-button-blinking.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This back-and-forth between Microsoft and Firefox is NOT helping debug Firefox on Vista .
Example :   http : //annoyances-resolved.blogspot.com/2009/10/firefox-vista-close-button-blinking.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This back-and-forth between Microsoft and Firefox is NOT helping debug Firefox on Vista.
Example:
  http://annoyances-resolved.blogspot.com/2009/10/firefox-vista-close-button-blinking.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788715</id>
	<title>Re:and people wonder why MS has security problems</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1255876680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; In what universe is it acceptable for vendor A to modify vendor B's software on User C's<br>&gt; (i.e. my) computer?</p><p>This one.  Various antivirus software hooks into Firefox and modifies its behavior (in Kaspersky's case by activating normally inactive codepaths that make DOM manipulation 100x slower or so in many case).  Various software (Adobe, etc) drop binary plug-ins into both IE and Firefox (and anything else they can).  Various software of dubious provenance throws various dlls into the Firefox process that do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something.  Mostly crash a lot, given the lists of dlls and the crash correlations to those in the mozilla crash database....</p><p>I agree that this behavior sucks, but it seems to be the norm, at least on Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; In what universe is it acceptable for vendor A to modify vendor B 's software on User C 's &gt; ( i.e .
my ) computer ? This one .
Various antivirus software hooks into Firefox and modifies its behavior ( in Kaspersky 's case by activating normally inactive codepaths that make DOM manipulation 100x slower or so in many case ) .
Various software ( Adobe , etc ) drop binary plug-ins into both IE and Firefox ( and anything else they can ) .
Various software of dubious provenance throws various dlls into the Firefox process that do ... something. Mostly crash a lot , given the lists of dlls and the crash correlations to those in the mozilla crash database....I agree that this behavior sucks , but it seems to be the norm , at least on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; In what universe is it acceptable for vendor A to modify vendor B's software on User C's&gt; (i.e.
my) computer?This one.
Various antivirus software hooks into Firefox and modifies its behavior (in Kaspersky's case by activating normally inactive codepaths that make DOM manipulation 100x slower or so in many case).
Various software (Adobe, etc) drop binary plug-ins into both IE and Firefox (and anything else they can).
Various software of dubious provenance throws various dlls into the Firefox process that do ... something.  Mostly crash a lot, given the lists of dlls and the crash correlations to those in the mozilla crash database....I agree that this behavior sucks, but it seems to be the norm, at least on Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779</id>
	<title>Outrage</title>
	<author>windex82</author>
	<datestamp>1255876680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wheres the outrage from the users who always have a huge bitch when other "more evil" companies disable something on your system automaticall?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wheres the outrage from the users who always have a huge bitch when other " more evil " companies disable something on your system automaticall ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wheres the outrage from the users who always have a huge bitch when other "more evil" companies disable something on your system automaticall?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786007</id>
	<title>Re:and people wonder why MS has security problems</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1255896600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In what universe is it acceptable for vendor A to modify vendor B's software on User C's (i.e. my) computer?</p></div><p>Probably the universe in which User C goes out of their way to install Vendor B's software, knowing full well that Vendor B has included an add-on mechanism that allows for third parties such as Vendor A to create extensions that augment the behavior of Vendor B's software.</p><p>That Vendor A would slip such an extension into the installer for a security patch to Vendor A's software, without the knowledge of User C, is of course a problem.  That problem has already been discussed at length.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what universe is it acceptable for vendor A to modify vendor B 's software on User C 's ( i.e .
my ) computer ? Probably the universe in which User C goes out of their way to install Vendor B 's software , knowing full well that Vendor B has included an add-on mechanism that allows for third parties such as Vendor A to create extensions that augment the behavior of Vendor B 's software.That Vendor A would slip such an extension into the installer for a security patch to Vendor A 's software , without the knowledge of User C , is of course a problem .
That problem has already been discussed at length .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what universe is it acceptable for vendor A to modify vendor B's software on User C's (i.e.
my) computer?Probably the universe in which User C goes out of their way to install Vendor B's software, knowing full well that Vendor B has included an add-on mechanism that allows for third parties such as Vendor A to create extensions that augment the behavior of Vendor B's software.That Vendor A would slip such an extension into the installer for a security patch to Vendor A's software, without the knowledge of User C, is of course a problem.
That problem has already been discussed at length.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783935</id>
	<title>Invalid certificate - no site</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255878240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what's even worse: It only has a 'check certificate' and and 'abort' button. There's no way to get to the webpage.</p><p>If the site didn't have a cert at all, firefox would happily display it, but with an invalid cert you don't even get an option to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what 's even worse : It only has a 'check certificate ' and and 'abort ' button .
There 's no way to get to the webpage.If the site did n't have a cert at all , firefox would happily display it , but with an invalid cert you do n't even get an option to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what's even worse: It only has a 'check certificate' and and 'abort' button.
There's no way to get to the webpage.If the site didn't have a cert at all, firefox would happily display it, but with an invalid cert you don't even get an option to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788095</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>CoolGopher</author>
	<datestamp>1255870260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially when it disables the friggen "uninstall" button!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially when it disables the friggen " uninstall " button !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially when it disables the friggen "uninstall" button!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784557</id>
	<title>What's even scarier...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1255883940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is that I didn't even *know* I had this add-on installed until I saw a small pop-up advising me it had been disabled. This was on my iBook, BTW. I know that I never installed it myself (I have no use for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, especially on a Mac), but I cannot figure out how it was installed.</p><p>Worse yet:  I can't even remove it, because the uninstall button has been disabled.  Note to the Mozilla folks:  Don't disable something and then prevent users from making it disappear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that I did n't even * know * I had this add-on installed until I saw a small pop-up advising me it had been disabled .
This was on my iBook , BTW .
I know that I never installed it myself ( I have no use for .NET , especially on a Mac ) , but I can not figure out how it was installed.Worse yet : I ca n't even remove it , because the uninstall button has been disabled .
Note to the Mozilla folks : Do n't disable something and then prevent users from making it disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that I didn't even *know* I had this add-on installed until I saw a small pop-up advising me it had been disabled.
This was on my iBook, BTW.
I know that I never installed it myself (I have no use for .NET, especially on a Mac), but I cannot figure out how it was installed.Worse yet:  I can't even remove it, because the uninstall button has been disabled.
Note to the Mozilla folks:  Don't disable something and then prevent users from making it disappear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784925</id>
	<title>Re:Read the TFA, MS suggested this!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1255887540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you surprised? Microsoft isn't like some kind of cartoon supervillain... if they have a bug in the add-on, and no fix ready yet, then of course they want people to disable it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you surprised ?
Microsoft is n't like some kind of cartoon supervillain... if they have a bug in the add-on , and no fix ready yet , then of course they want people to disable it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you surprised?
Microsoft isn't like some kind of cartoon supervillain... if they have a bug in the add-on, and no fix ready yet, then of course they want people to disable it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784225</id>
	<title>Mozilla should not follow Microsoft- no phone home</title>
	<author>gooneybird</author>
	<datestamp>1255880760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not like Firefox "phoning home" anymore than I like Microsoft "phoning home". I do not care if it's open source or not. I am here to tell Mozilla to STOP phoning home. I don't care what it's for or however good the intentions are... This combined with the apparent complete lack of concern for bugs and stability of Firefox 3.5.x and the apparent desire to just keep pumping out more versions and features, instead of actually releasing a quality version, is making me definitely consider alternatives. It appears that as the Mozilla organization grows in size, it's becoming similar to Microsoft.. This can't be a good thing.

And the cut-n-paste has been broken since v3.0 - are they ever going to fix it? - Or just keep putting out newer versions that the more newer it is, the more it crashes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not like Firefox " phoning home " anymore than I like Microsoft " phoning home " .
I do not care if it 's open source or not .
I am here to tell Mozilla to STOP phoning home .
I do n't care what it 's for or however good the intentions are... This combined with the apparent complete lack of concern for bugs and stability of Firefox 3.5.x and the apparent desire to just keep pumping out more versions and features , instead of actually releasing a quality version , is making me definitely consider alternatives .
It appears that as the Mozilla organization grows in size , it 's becoming similar to Microsoft.. This ca n't be a good thing .
And the cut-n-paste has been broken since v3.0 - are they ever going to fix it ?
- Or just keep putting out newer versions that the more newer it is , the more it crashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not like Firefox "phoning home" anymore than I like Microsoft "phoning home".
I do not care if it's open source or not.
I am here to tell Mozilla to STOP phoning home.
I don't care what it's for or however good the intentions are... This combined with the apparent complete lack of concern for bugs and stability of Firefox 3.5.x and the apparent desire to just keep pumping out more versions and features, instead of actually releasing a quality version, is making me definitely consider alternatives.
It appears that as the Mozilla organization grows in size, it's becoming similar to Microsoft.. This can't be a good thing.
And the cut-n-paste has been broken since v3.0 - are they ever going to fix it?
- Or just keep putting out newer versions that the more newer it is, the more it crashes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791785</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1255952100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I don't really care if it's great and so many organisations depend on it. I don't even care about the vulnerabilities.
</p><p>
I didn't ask for it, was installed behind my back and I was given no means to uninstal it. It's malware and Mozilla did the right thing cutting this evil by the root. MS behaviour is completely unacceptable and should be handled in a very strong and assertive way. Kudos for defending user freedom, Mozilla!
</p><p>
Now, if the MS plugin is so important, offer it as an optional download and allow for users to uninstall it, just like Java, Adobe and Flash.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really care if it 's great and so many organisations depend on it .
I do n't even care about the vulnerabilities .
I did n't ask for it , was installed behind my back and I was given no means to uninstal it .
It 's malware and Mozilla did the right thing cutting this evil by the root .
MS behaviour is completely unacceptable and should be handled in a very strong and assertive way .
Kudos for defending user freedom , Mozilla !
Now , if the MS plugin is so important , offer it as an optional download and allow for users to uninstall it , just like Java , Adobe and Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I don't really care if it's great and so many organisations depend on it.
I don't even care about the vulnerabilities.
I didn't ask for it, was installed behind my back and I was given no means to uninstal it.
It's malware and Mozilla did the right thing cutting this evil by the root.
MS behaviour is completely unacceptable and should be handled in a very strong and assertive way.
Kudos for defending user freedom, Mozilla!
Now, if the MS plugin is so important, offer it as an optional download and allow for users to uninstall it, just like Java, Adobe and Flash.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784211</id>
	<title>Re:Read the TFA, MS suggested this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255880640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true, unlike the poster, your mom wasn't sitting in front of her computer at 11:45 on Friday night, trust me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true , unlike the poster , your mom was n't sitting in front of her computer at 11 : 45 on Friday night , trust me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true, unlike the poster, your mom wasn't sitting in front of her computer at 11:45 on Friday night, trust me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783467</id>
	<title>Why was the MS plugin again legal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255872840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, saw it happen too on a machine I don't use often in Windows (the ones with Windows only had this thing removed the moment it appeared).</p><p>Now, the plugin was installed without consent, nor was there a way to remove it, and it exposed the end user to risk.  Ergo, this plugin thus violates computing laws in most countries - if it's illegal for Sony to rootkit your system it should be illegal for MS to add something to software that it didn't make.</p><p>I am thus quite surprised that I haven't heard any class action suits for this - I guess it's patch fatigue setting in..</p><p>Anyone else an explanation why that plugin avoided legal consequences?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , saw it happen too on a machine I do n't use often in Windows ( the ones with Windows only had this thing removed the moment it appeared ) .Now , the plugin was installed without consent , nor was there a way to remove it , and it exposed the end user to risk .
Ergo , this plugin thus violates computing laws in most countries - if it 's illegal for Sony to rootkit your system it should be illegal for MS to add something to software that it did n't make.I am thus quite surprised that I have n't heard any class action suits for this - I guess it 's patch fatigue setting in..Anyone else an explanation why that plugin avoided legal consequences ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, saw it happen too on a machine I don't use often in Windows (the ones with Windows only had this thing removed the moment it appeared).Now, the plugin was installed without consent, nor was there a way to remove it, and it exposed the end user to risk.
Ergo, this plugin thus violates computing laws in most countries - if it's illegal for Sony to rootkit your system it should be illegal for MS to add something to software that it didn't make.I am thus quite surprised that I haven't heard any class action suits for this - I guess it's patch fatigue setting in..Anyone else an explanation why that plugin avoided legal consequences?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792639</id>
	<title>Just Updated</title>
	<author>ITJC68</author>
	<datestamp>1255959960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was funny. I was just reading this story and firefox gave me the prompt and had me restart. LOL. Nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was funny .
I was just reading this story and firefox gave me the prompt and had me restart .
LOL. Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was funny.
I was just reading this story and firefox gave me the prompt and had me restart.
LOL. Nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791025</id>
	<title>Re:Read the TFA, MS suggested this!</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1255983720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From the TFA, it is clear that Microsoft approves of this particular move.</p></div></blockquote><p>It gives them cover to kill Google ChromeFrame (which stands to completely undo Microsoft's lock on IE users).  </p><p>I see that happening if there's any update in installation of ChromeFrame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the TFA , it is clear that Microsoft approves of this particular move.It gives them cover to kill Google ChromeFrame ( which stands to completely undo Microsoft 's lock on IE users ) .
I see that happening if there 's any update in installation of ChromeFrame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the TFA, it is clear that Microsoft approves of this particular move.It gives them cover to kill Google ChromeFrame (which stands to completely undo Microsoft's lock on IE users).
I see that happening if there's any update in installation of ChromeFrame.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788511</id>
	<title>Re:While they're at it...</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1255874520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't have to install their plugin...there's a link on the page that says something like "Click here if download doesn't start".</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to install their plugin...there 's a link on the page that says something like " Click here if download does n't start " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to install their plugin...there's a link on the page that says something like "Click here if download doesn't start".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783399</id>
	<title>Bad for Firefox in the long run?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I might be mistaken but don't these add-ons/plugins from Microsoft specifically allow certain web pages to render properly under Firefox which otherwise would have required users to run IE? If so Microsoft centric IT Enterprise users who have started using Firefox at work might revert back to IE. This might reduce the gains that Firefox has been achieving in Microsoft centric IT Enterprise shops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be mistaken but do n't these add-ons/plugins from Microsoft specifically allow certain web pages to render properly under Firefox which otherwise would have required users to run IE ?
If so Microsoft centric IT Enterprise users who have started using Firefox at work might revert back to IE .
This might reduce the gains that Firefox has been achieving in Microsoft centric IT Enterprise shops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be mistaken but don't these add-ons/plugins from Microsoft specifically allow certain web pages to render properly under Firefox which otherwise would have required users to run IE?
If so Microsoft centric IT Enterprise users who have started using Firefox at work might revert back to IE.
This might reduce the gains that Firefox has been achieving in Microsoft centric IT Enterprise shops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729</id>
	<title>This is very annoying for me</title>
	<author>Winckle</author>
	<datestamp>1255876200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like to play games through <a href="http://2dfighter.com/default.aspx" title="2dfighter.com">http://2dfighter.com/default.aspx</a> [2dfighter.com] and this extension let me do so through firefox, now I can't reactivate it at all, and I can't install a new version because it's been removed from the website. Thanks Mozilla, now I have to go back to IE to use 2df.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to play games through http : //2dfighter.com/default.aspx [ 2dfighter.com ] and this extension let me do so through firefox , now I ca n't reactivate it at all , and I ca n't install a new version because it 's been removed from the website .
Thanks Mozilla , now I have to go back to IE to use 2df .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to play games through http://2dfighter.com/default.aspx [2dfighter.com] and this extension let me do so through firefox, now I can't reactivate it at all, and I can't install a new version because it's been removed from the website.
Thanks Mozilla, now I have to go back to IE to use 2df.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783635</id>
	<title>Firefox is:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255874940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>awesome!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>awesome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>awesome!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784641</id>
	<title>Re:My surreal experience</title>
	<author>BadDreamer</author>
	<datestamp>1255884780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your friendly browser read Slashdot with you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your friendly browser read Slashdot with you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your friendly browser read Slashdot with you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784777</id>
	<title>Re:Read the TFA, MS suggested this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255886160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are the second person in four posts to talk about "the TFA."</p><p>What do you people think the T stands for anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are the second person in four posts to talk about " the TFA .
" What do you people think the T stands for anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are the second person in four posts to talk about "the TFA.
"What do you people think the T stands for anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783965</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255878540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just a useragent string, but it allows remote code execution.
<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777</a> [mozilla.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just a useragent string , but it allows remote code execution .
https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 522777 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just a useragent string, but it allows remote code execution.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777 [mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786511</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255857480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider any plugin installed without my consent to be malicious, especially if it's a plugin FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S SOFTWARE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider any plugin installed without my consent to be malicious , especially if it 's a plugin FOR SOMEONE ELSE 'S SOFTWARE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider any plugin installed without my consent to be malicious, especially if it's a plugin FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S SOFTWARE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553</id>
	<title>Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255873980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft says that the MS09-054 patch fixes the issue through all possible vectors, so the add-on is not a vulnerability on patched systems. Yet Firefox is blocking all versions of the add-ons. Why?</p><p>If it's to block potential future vulnerabilities then they should block all add-ons, because they all have potential future vulnerabilities.</p><p>If it's because some users may not update their systems then they should block all add-ons (especially Flash and Acrobat) because lots of add-ons have old vulnerabilities.</p><p>If it's just to stick it to Microsoft for the inconsiderate way they in which they delivered these add-ons then they should say so. I doubt Microsoft agreed to this, as Mozilla implies in their blog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft says that the MS09-054 patch fixes the issue through all possible vectors , so the add-on is not a vulnerability on patched systems .
Yet Firefox is blocking all versions of the add-ons .
Why ? If it 's to block potential future vulnerabilities then they should block all add-ons , because they all have potential future vulnerabilities.If it 's because some users may not update their systems then they should block all add-ons ( especially Flash and Acrobat ) because lots of add-ons have old vulnerabilities.If it 's just to stick it to Microsoft for the inconsiderate way they in which they delivered these add-ons then they should say so .
I doubt Microsoft agreed to this , as Mozilla implies in their blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft says that the MS09-054 patch fixes the issue through all possible vectors, so the add-on is not a vulnerability on patched systems.
Yet Firefox is blocking all versions of the add-ons.
Why?If it's to block potential future vulnerabilities then they should block all add-ons, because they all have potential future vulnerabilities.If it's because some users may not update their systems then they should block all add-ons (especially Flash and Acrobat) because lots of add-ons have old vulnerabilities.If it's just to stick it to Microsoft for the inconsiderate way they in which they delivered these add-ons then they should say so.
I doubt Microsoft agreed to this, as Mozilla implies in their blog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783989</id>
	<title>Re:Bad for Firefox in the long run?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255878780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Once you are used to the other add-ons, you can't live with a plain browser anymore anyway. ^^</p><p>But obviously, you think that everybody just caves is, when a page is crap (=renders only in IE).</p><p>Do you remember how you and others argued, that IE users complain that the <em>page</em> is buggy, when in fact their browser was?<br>You either have to say that the same is true for average Firefox users too, or that it never was true (which would be a lie, because people actually did blame the pages, as I know from years of being in that business).</p><p>I think they will finally call the page what it is, for "being buggy" (= requiring IE): A crappy page.<br>Then they will go to the competition, which is just a click away.</p><p>By the way: I really wonder why people still come up with that "IE only pages" argument. It's <em>years</em> since I last saw something like that. And even then it was an old and buggy page that looked like out of the 90s. With Firefox over 20\%, there is just no way any serious business would miss out on that market share. I know from my old job, that we usually had to make out pages compatible with enough browsers, to get above the 95\% margin. Which sometimes meant, to specifically test in IE (two versions, at least), Firefox, Opera and Safari. That's how business does it. Because every lost user is a lost client is going down compared to the competition means not reaching the yearly goal means no bonus or raises for anyone. It's a no-brainer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Once you are used to the other add-ons , you ca n't live with a plain browser anymore anyway .
^ ^ But obviously , you think that everybody just caves is , when a page is crap ( = renders only in IE ) .Do you remember how you and others argued , that IE users complain that the page is buggy , when in fact their browser was ? You either have to say that the same is true for average Firefox users too , or that it never was true ( which would be a lie , because people actually did blame the pages , as I know from years of being in that business ) .I think they will finally call the page what it is , for " being buggy " ( = requiring IE ) : A crappy page.Then they will go to the competition , which is just a click away.By the way : I really wonder why people still come up with that " IE only pages " argument .
It 's years since I last saw something like that .
And even then it was an old and buggy page that looked like out of the 90s .
With Firefox over 20 \ % , there is just no way any serious business would miss out on that market share .
I know from my old job , that we usually had to make out pages compatible with enough browsers , to get above the 95 \ % margin .
Which sometimes meant , to specifically test in IE ( two versions , at least ) , Firefox , Opera and Safari .
That 's how business does it .
Because every lost user is a lost client is going down compared to the competition means not reaching the yearly goal means no bonus or raises for anyone .
It 's a no-brainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Once you are used to the other add-ons, you can't live with a plain browser anymore anyway.
^^But obviously, you think that everybody just caves is, when a page is crap (=renders only in IE).Do you remember how you and others argued, that IE users complain that the page is buggy, when in fact their browser was?You either have to say that the same is true for average Firefox users too, or that it never was true (which would be a lie, because people actually did blame the pages, as I know from years of being in that business).I think they will finally call the page what it is, for "being buggy" (= requiring IE): A crappy page.Then they will go to the competition, which is just a click away.By the way: I really wonder why people still come up with that "IE only pages" argument.
It's years since I last saw something like that.
And even then it was an old and buggy page that looked like out of the 90s.
With Firefox over 20\%, there is just no way any serious business would miss out on that market share.
I know from my old job, that we usually had to make out pages compatible with enough browsers, to get above the 95\% margin.
Which sometimes meant, to specifically test in IE (two versions, at least), Firefox, Opera and Safari.
That's how business does it.
Because every lost user is a lost client is going down compared to the competition means not reaching the yearly goal means no bonus or raises for anyone.
It's a no-brainer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784333</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255881720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mike, I haven't seen anyone else say this, so allow me.  As a grateful firefox user and evangelist, thanks for your efforts, contributions, and patience in putting up with all of us.  Please pass this thanks on to your co-team members.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mike , I have n't seen anyone else say this , so allow me .
As a grateful firefox user and evangelist , thanks for your efforts , contributions , and patience in putting up with all of us .
Please pass this thanks on to your co-team members .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mike, I haven't seen anyone else say this, so allow me.
As a grateful firefox user and evangelist, thanks for your efforts, contributions, and patience in putting up with all of us.
Please pass this thanks on to your co-team members.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783813</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>Mike Shaver</author>
	<datestamp>1255876920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Microsoft or Apple asked us about such a kill-switch for a version of Firefox that we put onto their users' systems via a security update, and we agreed that it was the right thing to do, I would hope there wouldn't be a shitstorm at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft or Apple asked us about such a kill-switch for a version of Firefox that we put onto their users ' systems via a security update , and we agreed that it was the right thing to do , I would hope there would n't be a shitstorm at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft or Apple asked us about such a kill-switch for a version of Firefox that we put onto their users' systems via a security update, and we agreed that it was the right thing to do, I would hope there wouldn't be a shitstorm at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783721</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255876020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Do I have a history of lying about such things?</p><p>I for one, do not know you from a hill of beans, so I'll assume that yes, you do.</p><p>It's safer for me that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Do I have a history of lying about such things ? I for one , do not know you from a hill of beans , so I 'll assume that yes , you do.It 's safer for me that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Do I have a history of lying about such things?I for one, do not know you from a hill of beans, so I'll assume that yes, you do.It's safer for me that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788541</id>
	<title>Re:Does anybody actually use these forced plugins?</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1255874760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If users have nothing to gain from these plugins, then there is no reason they should exist."
<br> <br>
Since they DO exist, one would logically assume that there was a reason to make and release them.  That said, there have been a few posts in this thread about people who have lost functionality from the plugins being disabled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If users have nothing to gain from these plugins , then there is no reason they should exist .
" Since they DO exist , one would logically assume that there was a reason to make and release them .
That said , there have been a few posts in this thread about people who have lost functionality from the plugins being disabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If users have nothing to gain from these plugins, then there is no reason they should exist.
"
 
Since they DO exist, one would logically assume that there was a reason to make and release them.
That said, there have been a few posts in this thread about people who have lost functionality from the plugins being disabled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784023</id>
	<title>Re:How about just disabling Microsoft?</title>
	<author>daboochmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1255879080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As Mr. Morden said to Londo Mollari when Londo asked why not just destroy the Narn homeworld<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "one thing at a time, Ambassador, one thing at a time".</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Mr. Morden said to Londo Mollari when Londo asked why not just destroy the Narn homeworld ... " one thing at a time , Ambassador , one thing at a time " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Mr. Morden said to Londo Mollari when Londo asked why not just destroy the Narn homeworld ... "one thing at a time, Ambassador, one thing at a time".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415</id>
	<title>Read the TFA, MS suggested this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255872180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
From the TFA, it is clear that Microsoft approves of this particular move. I quote
</p><p>

It's recently surfaced that it has a serious security vulnerability, and Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on.


</p><p>
I mean, this damage control. But I think Firefox is doing the mature thing and doing it the right way. Because not everbody wants to read the <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/963707" title="microsoft.com">MS KnowledgeBase article</a> [microsoft.com] and implement it themselves. At least, not my mom.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the TFA , it is clear that Microsoft approves of this particular move .
I quote It 's recently surfaced that it has a serious security vulnerability , and Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on .
I mean , this damage control .
But I think Firefox is doing the mature thing and doing it the right way .
Because not everbody wants to read the MS KnowledgeBase article [ microsoft.com ] and implement it themselves .
At least , not my mom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
From the TFA, it is clear that Microsoft approves of this particular move.
I quote


It's recently surfaced that it has a serious security vulnerability, and Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on.
I mean, this damage control.
But I think Firefox is doing the mature thing and doing it the right way.
Because not everbody wants to read the MS KnowledgeBase article [microsoft.com] and implement it themselves.
At least, not my mom.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789001</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1255879560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser.  They allow for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible\_Application\_Markup\_Language" title="wikipedia.org">XAML applications</a> [wikipedia.org] to run in Firefox and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce" title="wikipedia.org">ClickOnce</a> [wikipedia.org] program distribution.  For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case).  Isn't this a good thing?</p></div><p>No, because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET doesn't belong on the Web any more than Java, Flash, or Silverlight.  None of them are part of the Web standards, and they all violate the idea that the Web is (and should be) completely browser-agnostic.</p><p>That being said, I agree with you that the blocking of these add-ons without the option to override the blocklist, regardless of whether the vulnerability is fixed, is a very poor move on Mozilla's part and they deserve far more flak than they are getting right now for merely having such an un-optional thing part of the browser in the first place.  Even their automatic updates can be disabled if need be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser .
They allow for XAML applications [ wikipedia.org ] to run in Firefox and ClickOnce [ wikipedia.org ] program distribution .
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser , this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies ( .NET in this case ) .
Is n't this a good thing ? No , because .NET does n't belong on the Web any more than Java , Flash , or Silverlight .
None of them are part of the Web standards , and they all violate the idea that the Web is ( and should be ) completely browser-agnostic.That being said , I agree with you that the blocking of these add-ons without the option to override the blocklist , regardless of whether the vulnerability is fixed , is a very poor move on Mozilla 's part and they deserve far more flak than they are getting right now for merely having such an un-optional thing part of the browser in the first place .
Even their automatic updates can be disabled if need be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser.
They allow for XAML applications [wikipedia.org] to run in Firefox and ClickOnce [wikipedia.org] program distribution.
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case).
Isn't this a good thing?No, because .NET doesn't belong on the Web any more than Java, Flash, or Silverlight.
None of them are part of the Web standards, and they all violate the idea that the Web is (and should be) completely browser-agnostic.That being said, I agree with you that the blocking of these add-ons without the option to override the blocklist, regardless of whether the vulnerability is fixed, is a very poor move on Mozilla's part and they deserve far more flak than they are getting right now for merely having such an un-optional thing part of the browser in the first place.
Even their automatic updates can be disabled if need be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790351</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1255889820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So...

</p><p><div class="quote"><p>First we'd like to make it clear that any customers that have applied the update associated with MS09-054 are protected, regardless of the attack vector. And most customers need not take any action as they'll receive this update automatically through Automatic Updates.</p></div><p>Why exactly should I believe this? How many obviously failed attempts to patch remote code execution and other such holes in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET have failed already? So, why does this patch suddenly protect us from ALL attack vectors? Do you really seriously think anyone with a brain and some technical knowledge should believe that?

</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But perhaps the best thing about this entire issue, is that Mozilla didn't block the plugins until AFTER they were patched and the mechanism of the block is retarded.</p></div><p>Dunno... because maybe they lack faith in Microsoft's claim to have patched<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET to protect users "regardless of the attack vector"? I for one know that with such a statement issued, I'd have little faith. It is simply the most retarded and clearly impossible statement ever. Wanna start taking bets as to when the next exploit for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and/or this plugin surface (regardless of MS insisting that everyone is protected "regardless of the attack vector")?

</p><p>And it is nice to see that you are holding Mozilla responsible for Microsoft's fuckup. Mozilla did not write the plugin, Mozilla also did not ensure that the uninstall mechanism was disabled (until MS finally released a patch for that). Did they perhaps act late? Sure. But more importantly, shouldn't Microsoft have acted sooner thus requiring no actions from Mozilla at all? Or even more importantly, shouldn't Microsoft have made it <b>clear</b> they were installing this thing in the first place and let users opt out of the install? Or not disabled the uninstall option?

</p><p>Now, on to the interoperability thing... couldn't Microsoft simply decide to follow web standards, instead of pushing their own, foisting "compatible" versions of their own methods into other products (and then most likely, as in the past killing those compatible versions when everyone is dependant on them)? So, that argument from you is kinda lame, considering such things are exactly what people have been complaining about Microsoft for doing for years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So.. . First we 'd like to make it clear that any customers that have applied the update associated with MS09-054 are protected , regardless of the attack vector .
And most customers need not take any action as they 'll receive this update automatically through Automatic Updates.Why exactly should I believe this ?
How many obviously failed attempts to patch remote code execution and other such holes in .NET have failed already ?
So , why does this patch suddenly protect us from ALL attack vectors ?
Do you really seriously think anyone with a brain and some technical knowledge should believe that ?
But perhaps the best thing about this entire issue , is that Mozilla did n't block the plugins until AFTER they were patched and the mechanism of the block is retarded.Dunno... because maybe they lack faith in Microsoft 's claim to have patched .NET to protect users " regardless of the attack vector " ?
I for one know that with such a statement issued , I 'd have little faith .
It is simply the most retarded and clearly impossible statement ever .
Wan na start taking bets as to when the next exploit for .NET and/or this plugin surface ( regardless of MS insisting that everyone is protected " regardless of the attack vector " ) ?
And it is nice to see that you are holding Mozilla responsible for Microsoft 's fuckup .
Mozilla did not write the plugin , Mozilla also did not ensure that the uninstall mechanism was disabled ( until MS finally released a patch for that ) .
Did they perhaps act late ?
Sure. But more importantly , should n't Microsoft have acted sooner thus requiring no actions from Mozilla at all ?
Or even more importantly , should n't Microsoft have made it clear they were installing this thing in the first place and let users opt out of the install ?
Or not disabled the uninstall option ?
Now , on to the interoperability thing... could n't Microsoft simply decide to follow web standards , instead of pushing their own , foisting " compatible " versions of their own methods into other products ( and then most likely , as in the past killing those compatible versions when everyone is dependant on them ) ?
So , that argument from you is kinda lame , considering such things are exactly what people have been complaining about Microsoft for doing for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...

First we'd like to make it clear that any customers that have applied the update associated with MS09-054 are protected, regardless of the attack vector.
And most customers need not take any action as they'll receive this update automatically through Automatic Updates.Why exactly should I believe this?
How many obviously failed attempts to patch remote code execution and other such holes in .NET have failed already?
So, why does this patch suddenly protect us from ALL attack vectors?
Do you really seriously think anyone with a brain and some technical knowledge should believe that?
But perhaps the best thing about this entire issue, is that Mozilla didn't block the plugins until AFTER they were patched and the mechanism of the block is retarded.Dunno... because maybe they lack faith in Microsoft's claim to have patched .NET to protect users "regardless of the attack vector"?
I for one know that with such a statement issued, I'd have little faith.
It is simply the most retarded and clearly impossible statement ever.
Wanna start taking bets as to when the next exploit for .NET and/or this plugin surface (regardless of MS insisting that everyone is protected "regardless of the attack vector")?
And it is nice to see that you are holding Mozilla responsible for Microsoft's fuckup.
Mozilla did not write the plugin, Mozilla also did not ensure that the uninstall mechanism was disabled (until MS finally released a patch for that).
Did they perhaps act late?
Sure. But more importantly, shouldn't Microsoft have acted sooner thus requiring no actions from Mozilla at all?
Or even more importantly, shouldn't Microsoft have made it clear they were installing this thing in the first place and let users opt out of the install?
Or not disabled the uninstall option?
Now, on to the interoperability thing... couldn't Microsoft simply decide to follow web standards, instead of pushing their own, foisting "compatible" versions of their own methods into other products (and then most likely, as in the past killing those compatible versions when everyone is dependant on them)?
So, that argument from you is kinda lame, considering such things are exactly what people have been complaining about Microsoft for doing for years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783481</id>
	<title>Re:Plugin-checker</title>
	<author>phozz bare</author>
	<datestamp>1255873020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The TFA makes a reference [...]</p></div><p>You mean The TFA <b>Article</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The TFA makes a reference [ ... ] You mean The TFA Article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TFA makes a reference [...]You mean The TFA Article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790389</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1255890180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In addition, if you checked out the bug page, you would find that Mozilla simply blocked it as soon as they were made aware of it:
<p>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition , if you checked out the bug page , you would find that Mozilla simply blocked it as soon as they were made aware of it : https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 522777</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition, if you checked out the bug page, you would find that Mozilla simply blocked it as soon as they were made aware of it:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786055</id>
	<title>Re:Outrage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255896960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not being argued by informed people, because you have the option to re-enable it in Firefox, if you'd like.</p><p>The outrage is about the evil company that automatically installed something dangerous on your browser, disguised as a "Security Patch", with no description of what it was installing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not being argued by informed people , because you have the option to re-enable it in Firefox , if you 'd like.The outrage is about the evil company that automatically installed something dangerous on your browser , disguised as a " Security Patch " , with no description of what it was installing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not being argued by informed people, because you have the option to re-enable it in Firefox, if you'd like.The outrage is about the evil company that automatically installed something dangerous on your browser, disguised as a "Security Patch", with no description of what it was installing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29794671</id>
	<title>A cat fight.ooooew</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1255969500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nicely done FF, I just can't wait until M$ cries over this, stating now that FF isn't playing fair and discriminating against their apps.<br>I love it when M$ drops the ball, and someone (with talent) picks it up and hands it back to them, slightly more polished then before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nicely done FF , I just ca n't wait until M $ cries over this , stating now that FF is n't playing fair and discriminating against their apps.I love it when M $ drops the ball , and someone ( with talent ) picks it up and hands it back to them , slightly more polished then before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nicely done FF, I just can't wait until M$ cries over this, stating now that FF isn't playing fair and discriminating against their apps.I love it when M$ drops the ball, and someone (with talent) picks it up and hands it back to them, slightly more polished then before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783425</id>
	<title>Ha ha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255872240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner</i>
<br>
<br>

Sooner as in six months to a year when Microsoft finally goes...hmm maybe that didn't quite work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner Sooner as in six months to a year when Microsoft finally goes...hmm maybe that did n't quite work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner



Sooner as in six months to a year when Microsoft finally goes...hmm maybe that didn't quite work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789021</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1255879800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft, perhaps, but everyone knows about Apple's kill switches in the iPhone, and even Google's ones in Android, but there isn't much controversy surrounding either one of them here.  I wonder why that is.</p><p>I'm going to assume that the ones commenting on some stories are probably not commenting in the others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft , perhaps , but everyone knows about Apple 's kill switches in the iPhone , and even Google 's ones in Android , but there is n't much controversy surrounding either one of them here .
I wonder why that is.I 'm going to assume that the ones commenting on some stories are probably not commenting in the others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft, perhaps, but everyone knows about Apple's kill switches in the iPhone, and even Google's ones in Android, but there isn't much controversy surrounding either one of them here.
I wonder why that is.I'm going to assume that the ones commenting on some stories are probably not commenting in the others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791099</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255985040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell is everyone talking about?<br>MS released a patch to the add-in to enable you to disable it in FireFox. So all this crap where people are saying "oh evil MS won't let us disable the add-on, hurrah Mozilla for blocking it" are talking arse.</p><p>ClickOnce allows you to run a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET app without having to run an installer on the machine and installs to a sandboxed area that has less permissios on the machine. In addition this will work even on machine that are locked down due to the sandboxing, thus it allows a massively richer application to be used than a website could ever provide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is everyone talking about ? MS released a patch to the add-in to enable you to disable it in FireFox .
So all this crap where people are saying " oh evil MS wo n't let us disable the add-on , hurrah Mozilla for blocking it " are talking arse.ClickOnce allows you to run a .NET app without having to run an installer on the machine and installs to a sandboxed area that has less permissios on the machine .
In addition this will work even on machine that are locked down due to the sandboxing , thus it allows a massively richer application to be used than a website could ever provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is everyone talking about?MS released a patch to the add-in to enable you to disable it in FireFox.
So all this crap where people are saying "oh evil MS won't let us disable the add-on, hurrah Mozilla for blocking it" are talking arse.ClickOnce allows you to run a .NET app without having to run an installer on the machine and installs to a sandboxed area that has less permissios on the machine.
In addition this will work even on machine that are locked down due to the sandboxing, thus it allows a massively richer application to be used than a website could ever provide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785847</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255895580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the good work, Mike!  Keep it up.  I'm glad to see some proactive and rapid action to protect users from this probably unnecessary and often unwanted plugin that has been foisted upon our systems.<br>Frankly I'm a deep believer in the ad-hoc opt in model to browser functionality as one might achieve with noscript.  For 99.999\% of sites (e.g. on a site by site basis and a domain / element by element basis) I don't want ANYTHING optional turned on, not java, not javascript, not codec / reader plugins, not flash, not anything that increases the attack surface of my browser.  Basically the default is a plain HTML text browser that might as well be LYNX.  Disable cookies and off-domain images and stylesheets too etc.  Then for a selected set of domains/elements/site URLs I'll enable a bit more of things like Javascript or whatever highly selectively.  And if there ever should exist particular sites that I wanted to allow the use of CLR/WPF/.NET/Silverlight related materials, you may be sure I'd only want those urls and only those to even have it enabled.  I wish that more explicit site/address/domain control of things like scripts, plugins, codecs, sound, cookies, animations, etc. were more easily possible in FF -- Noscript / flashblock / adblock /<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... doesn't entirely do it.  With the move to sqlite or whatever, I'd welcome some APIs in between FF's functionality like "I want to run this script from this domain" "I want to handle a file with this mime type from this domain" and sqlite which could hold a database of allow / deny capabilities and regex checking and whatever to easily configure the amount of exposed browser functionality on an ad hoc basis.</p><p>One thing that has disturbed me about addons like flashblock or noscript in the past was that, say, if I had something like a PDF plug in installed in the browser, but I configured the blocking add-on to block that functionality, I could SWEAR that I'd often see a glimpse of the media (e.g. a PDF file) that was supposed to be blocked actually LOAD AND RENDER in its page area and THEN moments later be covered up visually by whatever "this is blocked" canvas the plugin is expected to expose.  If it is actually LAUNCHING the codecs / plugins for things that are supposedly blocked and THEN blocking them, this seems like a security problem relative to people's expectations that things which are blocked shouldn't invoke 3rd party code which they're trying to limit exposure to.  Anyway I have no idea if it is still like that, but it does seem there should be ways to a-priori block the loading / handling of anything rather than a-posteriori.</p><p>As for MSIE on a related note, does anyone know how to ADD a new custom distinctly configurable security ZONE to IE8 e.g. under Vista / Win7?  I've tried adding a 6th entry to the registry as some WWW sites suggest by copying the tree under one of the default 1-5 zone keys but that doesn't seem to work at least with IE8/W7.  Frankly in the rare case I use MSIE I want the "internet" zone to basically behave like the "restricted sites" zone with only very very limited functionality, and to add a "semi trusted sites" zone I can manually add my "usual favorites" to such that they'd behave with something approaching but less than "normal internet zone" functionality.  Then for the few sites I REALLY want to open up to, they'd go in "trusted sites".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the good work , Mike !
Keep it up .
I 'm glad to see some proactive and rapid action to protect users from this probably unnecessary and often unwanted plugin that has been foisted upon our systems.Frankly I 'm a deep believer in the ad-hoc opt in model to browser functionality as one might achieve with noscript .
For 99.999 \ % of sites ( e.g .
on a site by site basis and a domain / element by element basis ) I do n't want ANYTHING optional turned on , not java , not javascript , not codec / reader plugins , not flash , not anything that increases the attack surface of my browser .
Basically the default is a plain HTML text browser that might as well be LYNX .
Disable cookies and off-domain images and stylesheets too etc .
Then for a selected set of domains/elements/site URLs I 'll enable a bit more of things like Javascript or whatever highly selectively .
And if there ever should exist particular sites that I wanted to allow the use of CLR/WPF/.NET/Silverlight related materials , you may be sure I 'd only want those urls and only those to even have it enabled .
I wish that more explicit site/address/domain control of things like scripts , plugins , codecs , sound , cookies , animations , etc .
were more easily possible in FF -- Noscript / flashblock / adblock / ... does n't entirely do it .
With the move to sqlite or whatever , I 'd welcome some APIs in between FF 's functionality like " I want to run this script from this domain " " I want to handle a file with this mime type from this domain " and sqlite which could hold a database of allow / deny capabilities and regex checking and whatever to easily configure the amount of exposed browser functionality on an ad hoc basis.One thing that has disturbed me about addons like flashblock or noscript in the past was that , say , if I had something like a PDF plug in installed in the browser , but I configured the blocking add-on to block that functionality , I could SWEAR that I 'd often see a glimpse of the media ( e.g .
a PDF file ) that was supposed to be blocked actually LOAD AND RENDER in its page area and THEN moments later be covered up visually by whatever " this is blocked " canvas the plugin is expected to expose .
If it is actually LAUNCHING the codecs / plugins for things that are supposedly blocked and THEN blocking them , this seems like a security problem relative to people 's expectations that things which are blocked should n't invoke 3rd party code which they 're trying to limit exposure to .
Anyway I have no idea if it is still like that , but it does seem there should be ways to a-priori block the loading / handling of anything rather than a-posteriori.As for MSIE on a related note , does anyone know how to ADD a new custom distinctly configurable security ZONE to IE8 e.g .
under Vista / Win7 ?
I 've tried adding a 6th entry to the registry as some WWW sites suggest by copying the tree under one of the default 1-5 zone keys but that does n't seem to work at least with IE8/W7 .
Frankly in the rare case I use MSIE I want the " internet " zone to basically behave like the " restricted sites " zone with only very very limited functionality , and to add a " semi trusted sites " zone I can manually add my " usual favorites " to such that they 'd behave with something approaching but less than " normal internet zone " functionality .
Then for the few sites I REALLY want to open up to , they 'd go in " trusted sites " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the good work, Mike!
Keep it up.
I'm glad to see some proactive and rapid action to protect users from this probably unnecessary and often unwanted plugin that has been foisted upon our systems.Frankly I'm a deep believer in the ad-hoc opt in model to browser functionality as one might achieve with noscript.
For 99.999\% of sites (e.g.
on a site by site basis and a domain / element by element basis) I don't want ANYTHING optional turned on, not java, not javascript, not codec / reader plugins, not flash, not anything that increases the attack surface of my browser.
Basically the default is a plain HTML text browser that might as well be LYNX.
Disable cookies and off-domain images and stylesheets too etc.
Then for a selected set of domains/elements/site URLs I'll enable a bit more of things like Javascript or whatever highly selectively.
And if there ever should exist particular sites that I wanted to allow the use of CLR/WPF/.NET/Silverlight related materials, you may be sure I'd only want those urls and only those to even have it enabled.
I wish that more explicit site/address/domain control of things like scripts, plugins, codecs, sound, cookies, animations, etc.
were more easily possible in FF -- Noscript / flashblock / adblock / ... doesn't entirely do it.
With the move to sqlite or whatever, I'd welcome some APIs in between FF's functionality like "I want to run this script from this domain" "I want to handle a file with this mime type from this domain" and sqlite which could hold a database of allow / deny capabilities and regex checking and whatever to easily configure the amount of exposed browser functionality on an ad hoc basis.One thing that has disturbed me about addons like flashblock or noscript in the past was that, say, if I had something like a PDF plug in installed in the browser, but I configured the blocking add-on to block that functionality, I could SWEAR that I'd often see a glimpse of the media (e.g.
a PDF file) that was supposed to be blocked actually LOAD AND RENDER in its page area and THEN moments later be covered up visually by whatever "this is blocked" canvas the plugin is expected to expose.
If it is actually LAUNCHING the codecs / plugins for things that are supposedly blocked and THEN blocking them, this seems like a security problem relative to people's expectations that things which are blocked shouldn't invoke 3rd party code which they're trying to limit exposure to.
Anyway I have no idea if it is still like that, but it does seem there should be ways to a-priori block the loading / handling of anything rather than a-posteriori.As for MSIE on a related note, does anyone know how to ADD a new custom distinctly configurable security ZONE to IE8 e.g.
under Vista / Win7?
I've tried adding a 6th entry to the registry as some WWW sites suggest by copying the tree under one of the default 1-5 zone keys but that doesn't seem to work at least with IE8/W7.
Frankly in the rare case I use MSIE I want the "internet" zone to basically behave like the "restricted sites" zone with only very very limited functionality, and to add a "semi trusted sites" zone I can manually add my "usual favorites" to such that they'd behave with something approaching but less than "normal internet zone" functionality.
Then for the few sites I REALLY want to open up to, they'd go in "trusted sites".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790769</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>starfire83</author>
	<datestamp>1255893900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get where people are getting this "didn't ask for it to be installed" and other such nonsense. Every single installer for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework since 1.0 (and subsequent service packs to the versions) have a EULA that you have to accept. In that EULA it no doubt mentions the plug-in since they legally have to and where else to put mention of it but in the EULA? Yeah, no one reads those but that's no one's fault but their own. You, technically, have awareness of the install by clicking the accept button.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get where people are getting this " did n't ask for it to be installed " and other such nonsense .
Every single installer for the .NET framework since 1.0 ( and subsequent service packs to the versions ) have a EULA that you have to accept .
In that EULA it no doubt mentions the plug-in since they legally have to and where else to put mention of it but in the EULA ?
Yeah , no one reads those but that 's no one 's fault but their own .
You , technically , have awareness of the install by clicking the accept button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get where people are getting this "didn't ask for it to be installed" and other such nonsense.
Every single installer for the .NET framework since 1.0 (and subsequent service packs to the versions) have a EULA that you have to accept.
In that EULA it no doubt mentions the plug-in since they legally have to and where else to put mention of it but in the EULA?
Yeah, no one reads those but that's no one's fault but their own.
You, technically, have awareness of the install by clicking the accept button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792313</id>
	<title>Re:Why was the MS plugin again legal?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1255957500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quick check of the list of plugins installed in Firefox on the machine I'm currently sat in front of shows that I have plugins for Quicktime, iTunes, Adobe Acrobat, the JVM, etc. I don't remember explicitly allowing any of them to be installed.</p><p>If you're going to haul MS over the coals for silently installing a browser plugin, you might want to go after a few other companies too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick check of the list of plugins installed in Firefox on the machine I 'm currently sat in front of shows that I have plugins for Quicktime , iTunes , Adobe Acrobat , the JVM , etc .
I do n't remember explicitly allowing any of them to be installed.If you 're going to haul MS over the coals for silently installing a browser plugin , you might want to go after a few other companies too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick check of the list of plugins installed in Firefox on the machine I'm currently sat in front of shows that I have plugins for Quicktime, iTunes, Adobe Acrobat, the JVM, etc.
I don't remember explicitly allowing any of them to be installed.If you're going to haul MS over the coals for silently installing a browser plugin, you might want to go after a few other companies too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784923</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255887540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget to mention that FF contacted a server despite disabling all visible option for any "phone home" activity.</p><p>What else is FF doing behind the users back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget to mention that FF contacted a server despite disabling all visible option for any " phone home " activity.What else is FF doing behind the users back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget to mention that FF contacted a server despite disabling all visible option for any "phone home" activity.What else is FF doing behind the users back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784397</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255882320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because it lets you bring in the same<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net vulnerabilities that IE has? Nobody asked for these to be brought into firefox. The issue is that they were installed without any confirmation. It was "installed for you".</p><p>duh. Go home you fucking shill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because it lets you bring in the same .net vulnerabilities that IE has ?
Nobody asked for these to be brought into firefox .
The issue is that they were installed without any confirmation .
It was " installed for you " .duh .
Go home you fucking shill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because it lets you bring in the same .net vulnerabilities that IE has?
Nobody asked for these to be brought into firefox.
The issue is that they were installed without any confirmation.
It was "installed for you".duh.
Go home you fucking shill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787049</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1255861320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>Please mod parent down!</b> He is not a real person anyhow, but a member of Microsoft's psy-op team, spreading disinformation. It is outrageous to see shills modded up to +5. You gotta wonder about the motivation of someone who is defending something that was installed by stealth instead of a normal opt-in procedure. Who of those fictitious users of One-Click he is referring to actually installed this plugin on Firefox? None of them!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...because it wasn't offered or advertized, and there was no opportunity to deliberately download this plugin, and therefore nobody asked for it.</p><p>The real story can be found on <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777" title="mozilla.org">the Mozila discussion board</a> [mozilla.org].</p><p>Fundamentally, Microsoft introduced a security risk into Firefox with these add-ons. That risk  came to fruition and thus Mozilla closed the risk entirely. Both have agreed to this, at least for the time being.</p><p>Mozilla is only blocking the unpatched vulnerability. It's just that there's no appreciable difference between the patched and unpatched versions so it's all blocked at once. Firefox users are by no means guaranteed to have both the update that caused this and the update that fixed this. Updates are not magic. Some people have them now; some don't. If it's not 100\% then it's vulnerable and hence the block.</p><p> <b>It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.*" maxversion.  This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable until it is available to them and installed.</b> </p><p>Mozila suggests that if you are one of the very small minority that need this software that was by and large installed into users' browsers without their permission or knowledge then you request Microsoft to write a clean version completely free of this and Mozilla can allow that through.</p><p>Neither the plugin nor the extension are updated by the hotfix, only an OS component that they depend upon is changed.  All versions of the extension or plugin are affected if the old version of the system component is installed, none are affected if the new version is installed. <b> Firefox doesn't contain a mechanism for checking system library versions, so there's no way to automatically block the plugin only on affected systems. It's all or nothing: disable this functionality completely, or allow even on systems with the vulnerability.</b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please mod parent down !
He is not a real person anyhow , but a member of Microsoft 's psy-op team , spreading disinformation .
It is outrageous to see shills modded up to + 5 .
You got ta wonder about the motivation of someone who is defending something that was installed by stealth instead of a normal opt-in procedure .
Who of those fictitious users of One-Click he is referring to actually installed this plugin on Firefox ?
None of them !
...because it was n't offered or advertized , and there was no opportunity to deliberately download this plugin , and therefore nobody asked for it.The real story can be found on the Mozila discussion board [ mozilla.org ] .Fundamentally , Microsoft introduced a security risk into Firefox with these add-ons .
That risk came to fruition and thus Mozilla closed the risk entirely .
Both have agreed to this , at least for the time being.Mozilla is only blocking the unpatched vulnerability .
It 's just that there 's no appreciable difference between the patched and unpatched versions so it 's all blocked at once .
Firefox users are by no means guaranteed to have both the update that caused this and the update that fixed this .
Updates are not magic .
Some people have them now ; some do n't .
If it 's not 100 \ % then it 's vulnerable and hence the block .
It 's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed , or ask for it to be installed , and it 's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind , as well as the " 9. * .
* " maxversion .
This means that users who do n't normally care about IE updates , because they are Firefox users , will be vulnerable until it is available to them and installed .
Mozila suggests that if you are one of the very small minority that need this software that was by and large installed into users ' browsers without their permission or knowledge then you request Microsoft to write a clean version completely free of this and Mozilla can allow that through.Neither the plugin nor the extension are updated by the hotfix , only an OS component that they depend upon is changed .
All versions of the extension or plugin are affected if the old version of the system component is installed , none are affected if the new version is installed .
Firefox does n't contain a mechanism for checking system library versions , so there 's no way to automatically block the plugin only on affected systems .
It 's all or nothing : disable this functionality completely , or allow even on systems with the vulnerability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Please mod parent down!
He is not a real person anyhow, but a member of Microsoft's psy-op team, spreading disinformation.
It is outrageous to see shills modded up to +5.
You gotta wonder about the motivation of someone who is defending something that was installed by stealth instead of a normal opt-in procedure.
Who of those fictitious users of One-Click he is referring to actually installed this plugin on Firefox?
None of them!
...because it wasn't offered or advertized, and there was no opportunity to deliberately download this plugin, and therefore nobody asked for it.The real story can be found on the Mozila discussion board [mozilla.org].Fundamentally, Microsoft introduced a security risk into Firefox with these add-ons.
That risk  came to fruition and thus Mozilla closed the risk entirely.
Both have agreed to this, at least for the time being.Mozilla is only blocking the unpatched vulnerability.
It's just that there's no appreciable difference between the patched and unpatched versions so it's all blocked at once.
Firefox users are by no means guaranteed to have both the update that caused this and the update that fixed this.
Updates are not magic.
Some people have them now; some don't.
If it's not 100\% then it's vulnerable and hence the block.
It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.
*" maxversion.
This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable until it is available to them and installed.
Mozila suggests that if you are one of the very small minority that need this software that was by and large installed into users' browsers without their permission or knowledge then you request Microsoft to write a clean version completely free of this and Mozilla can allow that through.Neither the plugin nor the extension are updated by the hotfix, only an OS component that they depend upon is changed.
All versions of the extension or plugin are affected if the old version of the system component is installed, none are affected if the new version is installed.
Firefox doesn't contain a mechanism for checking system library versions, so there's no way to automatically block the plugin only on affected systems.
It's all or nothing: disable this functionality completely, or allow even on systems with the vulnerability. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787815</id>
	<title>WPF: Windows Presentation Foundation</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1255867140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moar like WTF amirite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moar like WTF amirite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moar like WTF amirite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787349</id>
	<title>Re:MS kinda overstepped its bounds on this one.</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1255863300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A vulnerability which has already been patched." - maybe on your machines, but there could be millions of machines out there where it wasn't - that's the problem.</p><p>It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.*" maxversion. This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable without the block.</p><p>It is unfortunate that you have a lot of extra work awaiting you, but you only have Microsoft to blame for that. This is a serious vulnerability that Microsoft created, and both Microsoft &amp; Mozila agree that client's protection must come first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A vulnerability which has already been patched .
" - maybe on your machines , but there could be millions of machines out there where it was n't - that 's the problem.It 's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed , or ask for it to be installed , and it 's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind , as well as the " 9. * .
* " maxversion .
This means that users who do n't normally care about IE updates , because they are Firefox users , will be vulnerable without the block.It is unfortunate that you have a lot of extra work awaiting you , but you only have Microsoft to blame for that .
This is a serious vulnerability that Microsoft created , and both Microsoft &amp; Mozila agree that client 's protection must come first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A vulnerability which has already been patched.
" - maybe on your machines, but there could be millions of machines out there where it wasn't - that's the problem.It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.
*" maxversion.
This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable without the block.It is unfortunate that you have a lot of extra work awaiting you, but you only have Microsoft to blame for that.
This is a serious vulnerability that Microsoft created, and both Microsoft &amp; Mozila agree that client's protection must come first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783807</id>
	<title>Re:Oops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255876920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's being worked on. See bugs <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=505031" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">505031</a> [mozilla.org] and <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=454299" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">454299</a> [mozilla.org] to track.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's being worked on .
See bugs 505031 [ mozilla.org ] and 454299 [ mozilla.org ] to track .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's being worked on.
See bugs 505031 [mozilla.org] and 454299 [mozilla.org] to track.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789997</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistent logic</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1255887000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Imagine what would have happened if Mozilla remotely disabled everyone's Flash plug-in each time a new vulnerability was discovered in it?</p></div></blockquote><p>Hrmm either that would result in Flash getting the thorough clean-up it needs, or being effectively eliminated from the web. Either way, I dont see a downside. This is a great idea! </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine what would have happened if Mozilla remotely disabled everyone 's Flash plug-in each time a new vulnerability was discovered in it ? Hrmm either that would result in Flash getting the thorough clean-up it needs , or being effectively eliminated from the web .
Either way , I dont see a downside .
This is a great idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine what would have happened if Mozilla remotely disabled everyone's Flash plug-in each time a new vulnerability was discovered in it?Hrmm either that would result in Flash getting the thorough clean-up it needs, or being effectively eliminated from the web.
Either way, I dont see a downside.
This is a great idea! 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785081</id>
	<title>You are as gay as AIDS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>crawl back in your hole and die, M$ drone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>crawl back in your hole and die , M $ drone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>crawl back in your hole and die, M$ drone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788721</id>
	<title>ClickOnce add-on unblocked</title>
	<author>Mike Shaver</author>
	<datestamp>1255876740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We just got confirmation from Microsoft this evening that the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework Assistant add-on (used to provide ClickOnce stuffs) was NOT a vector for this vulnerability, so we've removed it from the blocklist.  The WPF plugin is still there, though we're working on a way to let sophisticated users and enterprises override the block if they know that they have applied the relevant IE patch to their system.</p><p>o/~ the more you know o/~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just got confirmation from Microsoft this evening that the .NET Framework Assistant add-on ( used to provide ClickOnce stuffs ) was NOT a vector for this vulnerability , so we 've removed it from the blocklist .
The WPF plugin is still there , though we 're working on a way to let sophisticated users and enterprises override the block if they know that they have applied the relevant IE patch to their system.o/ ~ the more you know o/ ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just got confirmation from Microsoft this evening that the .NET Framework Assistant add-on (used to provide ClickOnce stuffs) was NOT a vector for this vulnerability, so we've removed it from the blocklist.
The WPF plugin is still there, though we're working on a way to let sophisticated users and enterprises override the block if they know that they have applied the relevant IE patch to their system.o/~ the more you know o/~</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783409</id>
	<title>MS kinda overstepped its bounds on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255872000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has deservedly taken a LOT of sh*t for forcing this addon into Firefox unannounced - AND preventing you from disabling or uninstalling it - unless you yank it out of the registry. It's nice to see the Mozilla folks say "NOPE, you...'re NOT doing this to our browser, now get lost"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has deservedly taken a LOT of sh * t for forcing this addon into Firefox unannounced - AND preventing you from disabling or uninstalling it - unless you yank it out of the registry .
It 's nice to see the Mozilla folks say " NOPE , you... 're NOT doing this to our browser , now get lost "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has deservedly taken a LOT of sh*t for forcing this addon into Firefox unannounced - AND preventing you from disabling or uninstalling it - unless you yank it out of the registry.
It's nice to see the Mozilla folks say "NOPE, you...'re NOT doing this to our browser, now get lost"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784099</id>
	<title>Re:How about just disabling Microsoft?</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1255879800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my system now runs 1.27\% faster compared to yesterday. It feels like 10\% faster, really</p></div><p>Ahhh you must have complied using something other than 386! Congrads on useing "make menuconfig"!!!</p><p>Now if I could only learn how to get that damn make-kpkg to work right in Debian so the modules get included in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dep file... What is a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dep file anyhow? is it just some tar file? I really wanna make a complete custom kernel package that I can move to my other system.... sigh</p><p>"Documentation" vs "developers, developers, developers!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my system now runs 1.27 \ % faster compared to yesterday .
It feels like 10 \ % faster , reallyAhhh you must have complied using something other than 386 !
Congrads on useing " make menuconfig " ! !
! Now if I could only learn how to get that damn make-kpkg to work right in Debian so the modules get included in the .dep file... What is a .dep file anyhow ?
is it just some tar file ?
I really wan na make a complete custom kernel package that I can move to my other system.... sigh " Documentation " vs " developers , developers , developers !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my system now runs 1.27\% faster compared to yesterday.
It feels like 10\% faster, reallyAhhh you must have complied using something other than 386!
Congrads on useing "make menuconfig"!!
!Now if I could only learn how to get that damn make-kpkg to work right in Debian so the modules get included in the .dep file... What is a .dep file anyhow?
is it just some tar file?
I really wanna make a complete custom kernel package that I can move to my other system.... sigh"Documentation" vs "developers, developers, developers!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784245</id>
	<title>Re:Bad for Firefox in the long run?</title>
	<author>wasabii</author>
	<datestamp>1255881000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup. Basically. I'm going to be super pissed if I have to walk around to 100+ machines tomorrow morning and uninstall Firefox. Seriously. That'll be the end of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Basically. I 'm going to be super pissed if I have to walk around to 100 + machines tomorrow morning and uninstall Firefox .
Seriously. That 'll be the end of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Basically. I'm going to be super pissed if I have to walk around to 100+ machines tomorrow morning and uninstall Firefox.
Seriously. That'll be the end of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785631</id>
	<title>Re:While they're at it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255893960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're going too low on the food chain; just disable adobe reader.<br>The thing is an ongoing greek tragedy of one inexcusable remotely exploitable security<br>vulnerability after another on a monthly basis.  9.1 I figured I'd forgive them their errors and I installed the 9.1.1 patch, yes, patch, since apparently they couldn't be bothered to make an installable version so you'd have to install the KNOWN VULNERABLE version FIRST then patch it to get the latest version.  Fast forward a few weeks and, oops, 9.1.1 has also a remotely exploitable vulnerability that sits unpatched for all too long until 9.1.2 patch comes out.  Ok, installed that.  Rinse, repeat, what do you know, 9.1.2 is remotely exploitable too, and here comes a 9.1.3 patch.  Ok, this is getting ridiculous and scary since there have been common exploits in the wild infecting people with drive-by malware through PDF/javascript/browser integration while they were cooking up the latest patches.  And, hey, what do you know, 9.1.3 NOW has itself a remotely exploitable vulnerability and there IS NO PATCH.<br>F*** adobe and their insecure bloatware.  Is it too much to ask that sometime in the last dozen versions you could have, say, removed a lot of the insecurities, disabled the media / javascript / browser integration / etc. stuff by default, and come out with a useful version that isn't the SINGLE BIGGEST VULNERABILITY on millions of systems?</p><p>PDFs are now getting read or format converted to something that doesn't wreck my machine using a linux VM via evince / xpdf / ghostview or whatever.  Never again, Adobe; your PDF reader software is "considered harmful".</p><p>Oh, and the story with FLASH player plugin is the same.  Look at the vulnerability reports for the last dozen or so versions and try to convince yourself it is safe to run their latest honeypot of the day "it's fixed now, honest..." version.</p><p>FWIW, though, for the masochists that insist on drinking their PDF poisoned kool aid, do yourself a favor and use ftp.adobe.com to download it and not their worthless web site; at least you can save some of the pain of dealing with their malware soap opera of non-improving versions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're going too low on the food chain ; just disable adobe reader.The thing is an ongoing greek tragedy of one inexcusable remotely exploitable securityvulnerability after another on a monthly basis .
9.1 I figured I 'd forgive them their errors and I installed the 9.1.1 patch , yes , patch , since apparently they could n't be bothered to make an installable version so you 'd have to install the KNOWN VULNERABLE version FIRST then patch it to get the latest version .
Fast forward a few weeks and , oops , 9.1.1 has also a remotely exploitable vulnerability that sits unpatched for all too long until 9.1.2 patch comes out .
Ok , installed that .
Rinse , repeat , what do you know , 9.1.2 is remotely exploitable too , and here comes a 9.1.3 patch .
Ok , this is getting ridiculous and scary since there have been common exploits in the wild infecting people with drive-by malware through PDF/javascript/browser integration while they were cooking up the latest patches .
And , hey , what do you know , 9.1.3 NOW has itself a remotely exploitable vulnerability and there IS NO PATCH.F * * * adobe and their insecure bloatware .
Is it too much to ask that sometime in the last dozen versions you could have , say , removed a lot of the insecurities , disabled the media / javascript / browser integration / etc .
stuff by default , and come out with a useful version that is n't the SINGLE BIGGEST VULNERABILITY on millions of systems ? PDFs are now getting read or format converted to something that does n't wreck my machine using a linux VM via evince / xpdf / ghostview or whatever .
Never again , Adobe ; your PDF reader software is " considered harmful " .Oh , and the story with FLASH player plugin is the same .
Look at the vulnerability reports for the last dozen or so versions and try to convince yourself it is safe to run their latest honeypot of the day " it 's fixed now , honest... " version.FWIW , though , for the masochists that insist on drinking their PDF poisoned kool aid , do yourself a favor and use ftp.adobe.com to download it and not their worthless web site ; at least you can save some of the pain of dealing with their malware soap opera of non-improving versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're going too low on the food chain; just disable adobe reader.The thing is an ongoing greek tragedy of one inexcusable remotely exploitable securityvulnerability after another on a monthly basis.
9.1 I figured I'd forgive them their errors and I installed the 9.1.1 patch, yes, patch, since apparently they couldn't be bothered to make an installable version so you'd have to install the KNOWN VULNERABLE version FIRST then patch it to get the latest version.
Fast forward a few weeks and, oops, 9.1.1 has also a remotely exploitable vulnerability that sits unpatched for all too long until 9.1.2 patch comes out.
Ok, installed that.
Rinse, repeat, what do you know, 9.1.2 is remotely exploitable too, and here comes a 9.1.3 patch.
Ok, this is getting ridiculous and scary since there have been common exploits in the wild infecting people with drive-by malware through PDF/javascript/browser integration while they were cooking up the latest patches.
And, hey, what do you know, 9.1.3 NOW has itself a remotely exploitable vulnerability and there IS NO PATCH.F*** adobe and their insecure bloatware.
Is it too much to ask that sometime in the last dozen versions you could have, say, removed a lot of the insecurities, disabled the media / javascript / browser integration / etc.
stuff by default, and come out with a useful version that isn't the SINGLE BIGGEST VULNERABILITY on millions of systems?PDFs are now getting read or format converted to something that doesn't wreck my machine using a linux VM via evince / xpdf / ghostview or whatever.
Never again, Adobe; your PDF reader software is "considered harmful".Oh, and the story with FLASH player plugin is the same.
Look at the vulnerability reports for the last dozen or so versions and try to convince yourself it is safe to run their latest honeypot of the day "it's fixed now, honest..." version.FWIW, though, for the masochists that insist on drinking their PDF poisoned kool aid, do yourself a favor and use ftp.adobe.com to download it and not their worthless web site; at least you can save some of the pain of dealing with their malware soap opera of non-improving versions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783861</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>rtaylor187</author>
	<datestamp>1255877460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...</p></div><p>There are some situations where a kill-switch is useful - this seems like one of them per TFA.

So, I don't think "we" are against kill-switches per se, but rather against undisclosed/secret kill-switches.

Firefox is open source, so the kill-switch mechanism is visible in the source somewhere - right?
It would take some code review to be "aware", but it is openly available to be found.

Whereas...  Microsoft, Apple and Amazon (Kindle) are delivering closed source products where
a kill-switch mechanism would be hidden/secret unless explicitly disclosed by the manufacturer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we were against kill-switches , and certainly was n't aware that there were any built into Firefox...There are some situations where a kill-switch is useful - this seems like one of them per TFA .
So , I do n't think " we " are against kill-switches per se , but rather against undisclosed/secret kill-switches .
Firefox is open source , so the kill-switch mechanism is visible in the source somewhere - right ?
It would take some code review to be " aware " , but it is openly available to be found .
Whereas... Microsoft , Apple and Amazon ( Kindle ) are delivering closed source products where a kill-switch mechanism would be hidden/secret unless explicitly disclosed by the manufacturer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...There are some situations where a kill-switch is useful - this seems like one of them per TFA.
So, I don't think "we" are against kill-switches per se, but rather against undisclosed/secret kill-switches.
Firefox is open source, so the kill-switch mechanism is visible in the source somewhere - right?
It would take some code review to be "aware", but it is openly available to be found.
Whereas...  Microsoft, Apple and Amazon (Kindle) are delivering closed source products where
a kill-switch mechanism would be hidden/secret unless explicitly disclosed by the manufacturer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784255</id>
	<title>Re:This is very annoying for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255881000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the bright side:</p><p>Now you can use the unsecure MS browser for trusted sites that require such things AND Firefox for whenever you don't feel like placing absolute trust on a website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the bright side : Now you can use the unsecure MS browser for trusted sites that require such things AND Firefox for whenever you do n't feel like placing absolute trust on a website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the bright side:Now you can use the unsecure MS browser for trusted sites that require such things AND Firefox for whenever you don't feel like placing absolute trust on a website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784503</id>
	<title>Re:How about just disabling Microsoft?</title>
	<author>King Kwame Kilpatric</author>
	<datestamp>1255883460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is OT, but:<br> <br>

man depmod<br> <br>
<i>depmod - program to generate modules.dep and map files</i> <br> <br>

If you mean you want the modules in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr><b>.deb</b> file, use the <i>--initrd</i> parameter as well as a script, such as<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share/doc/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share/doc/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs

<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...as is mentioned in<nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>/usr/share/doc/kernel-package/README.gz</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is OT , but : man depmod depmod - program to generate modules.dep and map files If you mean you want the modules in the .deb file , use the --initrd parameter as well as a script , such as /usr/share/doc/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs /usr/share/doc/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs ...as is mentioned in /usr/share/doc/kernel-package/README.gz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is OT, but: 

man depmod 
depmod - program to generate modules.dep and map files  

If you mean you want the modules in the .deb file, use the --initrd parameter as well as a script, such as /usr/share/doc/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs /usr/share/doc/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs

  ...as is mentioned in /usr/share/doc/kernel-package/README.gz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784679</id>
	<title>How to override?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255885080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's great and all, but one of my core beliefs is that the user should be able to override anything (even if it means certain death).  Bury it really deep, throw up a bunch of dialogs, whatever; it is my computer, I'll take the risk if I so choose.  It doesn't appear to be possible to override this setting; that is unfortunate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great and all , but one of my core beliefs is that the user should be able to override anything ( even if it means certain death ) .
Bury it really deep , throw up a bunch of dialogs , whatever ; it is my computer , I 'll take the risk if I so choose .
It does n't appear to be possible to override this setting ; that is unfortunate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's great and all, but one of my core beliefs is that the user should be able to override anything (even if it means certain death).
Bury it really deep, throw up a bunch of dialogs, whatever; it is my computer, I'll take the risk if I so choose.
It doesn't appear to be possible to override this setting; that is unfortunate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785191</id>
	<title>Re:MS kinda overstepped its bounds on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255890000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can edit an XML file somewhere in the firefox folders, and there's an entry in about:config that will disable the check that happens every 24 hours. I find it ridiculous as well that the plugin is blocked even after the patch has been applied. It makes no sense at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can edit an XML file somewhere in the firefox folders , and there 's an entry in about : config that will disable the check that happens every 24 hours .
I find it ridiculous as well that the plugin is blocked even after the patch has been applied .
It makes no sense at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can edit an XML file somewhere in the firefox folders, and there's an entry in about:config that will disable the check that happens every 24 hours.
I find it ridiculous as well that the plugin is blocked even after the patch has been applied.
It makes no sense at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784199</id>
	<title>Does anybody actually use these forced plugins?</title>
	<author>Dwedit</author>
	<datestamp>1255880520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there <b>any</b> software which actually uses these<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Helper and Windows Presentation Foundation plugins?  Do these expose an API to let javascript code interact with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework or something?  Do they let people write Firefox extensions in a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET language?  Do they let specially crafted Microsoft websites run<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET code in Firefox?</p><p>If users have nothing to gain from these plugins, then there is no reason they should exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any software which actually uses these .NET Helper and Windows Presentation Foundation plugins ?
Do these expose an API to let javascript code interact with the .NET framework or something ?
Do they let people write Firefox extensions in a .NET language ?
Do they let specially crafted Microsoft websites run .NET code in Firefox ? If users have nothing to gain from these plugins , then there is no reason they should exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any software which actually uses these .NET Helper and Windows Presentation Foundation plugins?
Do these expose an API to let javascript code interact with the .NET framework or something?
Do they let people write Firefox extensions in a .NET language?
Do they let specially crafted Microsoft websites run .NET code in Firefox?If users have nothing to gain from these plugins, then there is no reason they should exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788913</id>
	<title>Re:Outrage</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1255878600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know.  All I see is more gripe about Microsoft's addition of the thing in the first place.  Microsoft had no right to silently install the add-on to begin with, but two wrongs don't make a right.  Mozilla had no right to tell their user base what's good for them, at least not without an option to override the blocklist, which the Mozilla blocklist information site linked to in the submission makes no mention of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
All I see is more gripe about Microsoft 's addition of the thing in the first place .
Microsoft had no right to silently install the add-on to begin with , but two wrongs do n't make a right .
Mozilla had no right to tell their user base what 's good for them , at least not without an option to override the blocklist , which the Mozilla blocklist information site linked to in the submission makes no mention of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
All I see is more gripe about Microsoft's addition of the thing in the first place.
Microsoft had no right to silently install the add-on to begin with, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Mozilla had no right to tell their user base what's good for them, at least not without an option to override the blocklist, which the Mozilla blocklist information site linked to in the submission makes no mention of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784967</id>
	<title>Old Problem = New Marketing?</title>
	<author>tunapez</author>
	<datestamp>1255888080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running a 10 day old install of 7 RC x64, but I seem to recall removing this from my other Win/Ubuntu machines <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/01/ms\_firefox\_extension\_row/" title="theregister.co.uk">back in June</a> [theregister.co.uk]. After hearing the new cacophony a few days ago, I found and disabled the plug-in to see if I would be missing anything before I uninstalled it completely(7RC <i>did</i> have disable &amp; remove buttons). Caturday morning I started up FF(3.5.3) to a prompt to restart FF to disable the add-on I had already disabled. Before restarting, I noticed the Disable button was greyed out, and the enable &amp; uninstall buttons were gone. Same after restart. So, my add-on is now "doubly" disabled and I <b>have</b> to edit the reg to remove now? Glad to see the pro-action, but this has the pomp &amp; reek of a marketing campaign for the new add-on checker.</p><p>Meh, FF jumped the shark already, IMO. I use it(and IE) because it is what the customers use and it has AB+ &amp; NoScript. Guess it's time to use Opera FT while looking for the next pre-bloated-from-success browser that plays nice w/ JRE, JS &amp; Flash. sigh....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running a 10 day old install of 7 RC x64 , but I seem to recall removing this from my other Win/Ubuntu machines back in June [ theregister.co.uk ] .
After hearing the new cacophony a few days ago , I found and disabled the plug-in to see if I would be missing anything before I uninstalled it completely ( 7RC did have disable &amp; remove buttons ) .
Caturday morning I started up FF ( 3.5.3 ) to a prompt to restart FF to disable the add-on I had already disabled .
Before restarting , I noticed the Disable button was greyed out , and the enable &amp; uninstall buttons were gone .
Same after restart .
So , my add-on is now " doubly " disabled and I have to edit the reg to remove now ?
Glad to see the pro-action , but this has the pomp &amp; reek of a marketing campaign for the new add-on checker.Meh , FF jumped the shark already , IMO .
I use it ( and IE ) because it is what the customers use and it has AB + &amp; NoScript .
Guess it 's time to use Opera FT while looking for the next pre-bloated-from-success browser that plays nice w/ JRE , JS &amp; Flash .
sigh... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running a 10 day old install of 7 RC x64, but I seem to recall removing this from my other Win/Ubuntu machines back in June [theregister.co.uk].
After hearing the new cacophony a few days ago, I found and disabled the plug-in to see if I would be missing anything before I uninstalled it completely(7RC did have disable &amp; remove buttons).
Caturday morning I started up FF(3.5.3) to a prompt to restart FF to disable the add-on I had already disabled.
Before restarting, I noticed the Disable button was greyed out, and the enable &amp; uninstall buttons were gone.
Same after restart.
So, my add-on is now "doubly" disabled and I have to edit the reg to remove now?
Glad to see the pro-action, but this has the pomp &amp; reek of a marketing campaign for the new add-on checker.Meh, FF jumped the shark already, IMO.
I use it(and IE) because it is what the customers use and it has AB+ &amp; NoScript.
Guess it's time to use Opera FT while looking for the next pre-bloated-from-success browser that plays nice w/ JRE, JS &amp; Flash.
sigh....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784185</id>
	<title>Re:Nuke it with regedit...</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1255880460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Delete key name '{20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b}'</i></p><p>Be careful. If you accidentally delete key {20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08855760534b}, your machine explodes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Delete key name ' { 20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b } 'Be careful .
If you accidentally delete key { 20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08855760534b } , your machine explodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Delete key name '{20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b}'Be careful.
If you accidentally delete key {20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08855760534b}, your machine explodes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783919</id>
	<title>Re:Plugin-checker</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255878120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So RMS also caved in, and does not disable images and CSS styles anymore? What a loser. I knew he was getting weak when he switched from netcat to lynx!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So RMS also caved in , and does not disable images and CSS styles anymore ?
What a loser .
I knew he was getting weak when he switched from netcat to lynx !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So RMS also caved in, and does not disable images and CSS styles anymore?
What a loser.
I knew he was getting weak when he switched from netcat to lynx!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791031</id>
	<title>Re:Bad for Firefox in the long run?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255983900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>about:config "blocklist". Duh, and you call yourself an admin?</htmltext>
<tokenext>about : config " blocklist " .
Duh , and you call yourself an admin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about:config "blocklist".
Duh, and you call yourself an admin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29793503</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>jeremyp</author>
	<datestamp>1255964460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent is wrong in one technical respect.  The blocking mechanism does work by version, but the Microsoft add-on has not changed.  The bug and the patch were in an underlying operating system component.</p><p>The blocking mechanism is brain dead in one respect, in that it does not allow users to override the block decision.  However, as the last post on the bug thread states,, the add-on mechanism is also flawed, since it should not be possible for other companies to silently install Firefox add-ons without the user's consent.  Microsoft is not the only company to have done this, apparently HP have done it for some of their printer drivers.  A prompt the first time the add-on runs would help enormously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is wrong in one technical respect .
The blocking mechanism does work by version , but the Microsoft add-on has not changed .
The bug and the patch were in an underlying operating system component.The blocking mechanism is brain dead in one respect , in that it does not allow users to override the block decision .
However , as the last post on the bug thread states, , the add-on mechanism is also flawed , since it should not be possible for other companies to silently install Firefox add-ons without the user 's consent .
Microsoft is not the only company to have done this , apparently HP have done it for some of their printer drivers .
A prompt the first time the add-on runs would help enormously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is wrong in one technical respect.
The blocking mechanism does work by version, but the Microsoft add-on has not changed.
The bug and the patch were in an underlying operating system component.The blocking mechanism is brain dead in one respect, in that it does not allow users to override the block decision.
However, as the last post on the bug thread states,, the add-on mechanism is also flawed, since it should not be possible for other companies to silently install Firefox add-ons without the user's consent.
Microsoft is not the only company to have done this, apparently HP have done it for some of their printer drivers.
A prompt the first time the add-on runs would help enormously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790737</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>violet16</author>
	<datestamp>1255893660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla guy responds to that here:

<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777#c83" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777#c83</a> [mozilla.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla guy responds to that here : https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 522777 # c83 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla guy responds to that here:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=522777#c83 [mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29794651</id>
	<title>Re:Oops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255969380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-1 points abuse of Whilst.  What is wrong with "while"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 points abuse of Whilst .
What is wrong with " while " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 points abuse of Whilst.
What is wrong with "while"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785053</id>
	<title>And in other news. . .</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1255888980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There've been a few anonymous reports from Redmond, WA that people have been seeing chairs randomly flying through office windows at MS Headquarters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 've been a few anonymous reports from Redmond , WA that people have been seeing chairs randomly flying through office windows at MS Headquarters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There've been a few anonymous reports from Redmond, WA that people have been seeing chairs randomly flying through office windows at MS Headquarters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29877199</id>
	<title>Re:Why was the MS plugin again legal?</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1256550720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me amend this question.</p><p>Most of the comments appear to assume that "it must have been in the EULA somewhere".</p><p>Well, I may be different to most - I READ THOSE.  That's why I will never uise Google services - check out their Terms of Service, point 11.</p><p>So, bottomline, every comment that states "you have probably agreed to this" - sorry, I explicitly haven't.  The Java plugin I knew about, and so for all the others.  *Not* so for the MS breach of my computer.</p><p>If you find a EULA that states differently I'd like to read it - I have not find a single reference to this plug-in, so the MS apology is not "mea culpa", it's more like Sony: "sh*t, someone caught us".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me amend this question.Most of the comments appear to assume that " it must have been in the EULA somewhere " .Well , I may be different to most - I READ THOSE .
That 's why I will never uise Google services - check out their Terms of Service , point 11.So , bottomline , every comment that states " you have probably agreed to this " - sorry , I explicitly have n't .
The Java plugin I knew about , and so for all the others .
* Not * so for the MS breach of my computer.If you find a EULA that states differently I 'd like to read it - I have not find a single reference to this plug-in , so the MS apology is not " mea culpa " , it 's more like Sony : " sh * t , someone caught us " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me amend this question.Most of the comments appear to assume that "it must have been in the EULA somewhere".Well, I may be different to most - I READ THOSE.
That's why I will never uise Google services - check out their Terms of Service, point 11.So, bottomline, every comment that states "you have probably agreed to this" - sorry, I explicitly haven't.
The Java plugin I knew about, and so for all the others.
*Not* so for the MS breach of my computer.If you find a EULA that states differently I'd like to read it - I have not find a single reference to this plug-in, so the MS apology is not "mea culpa", it's more like Sony: "sh*t, someone caught us".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788169</id>
	<title>Where the fuck?</title>
	<author>isochroma</author>
	<datestamp>1255870920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where the fuck does this fucking Mozilla corporation have a right to hack into my fucking computer and modify my fucking browser?

What gives them the right to arbitrarily 'killswitch' any addon they choose?

I'm finding out where that firefox killswitch code is and disabling it to-fucking-day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where the fuck does this fucking Mozilla corporation have a right to hack into my fucking computer and modify my fucking browser ?
What gives them the right to arbitrarily 'killswitch ' any addon they choose ?
I 'm finding out where that firefox killswitch code is and disabling it to-fucking-day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where the fuck does this fucking Mozilla corporation have a right to hack into my fucking computer and modify my fucking browser?
What gives them the right to arbitrarily 'killswitch' any addon they choose?
I'm finding out where that firefox killswitch code is and disabling it to-fucking-day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539</id>
	<title>Re:How about just disabling Microsoft?</title>
	<author>siddesu</author>
	<datestamp>1255873860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, it doesn't help at all !!!</p><p>I have Microsoft disabled (I run Gentoo Linux), and my Firefox failed miserably to disable the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net plug-in. I spent a day clicking on the menus and recompiling updates, and I still don't get the pop-up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>On the bright side, my system now runs 1.27\% faster compared to yesterday. It feels like 10\% faster, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , it does n't help at all ! !
! I have Microsoft disabled ( I run Gentoo Linux ) , and my Firefox failed miserably to disable the .Net plug-in .
I spent a day clicking on the menus and recompiling updates , and I still do n't get the pop-up : ( On the bright side , my system now runs 1.27 \ % faster compared to yesterday .
It feels like 10 \ % faster , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, it doesn't help at all !!
!I have Microsoft disabled (I run Gentoo Linux), and my Firefox failed miserably to disable the .Net plug-in.
I spent a day clicking on the menus and recompiling updates, and I still don't get the pop-up :(On the bright side, my system now runs 1.27\% faster compared to yesterday.
It feels like 10\% faster, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785087</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>Trelane</author>
	<datestamp>1255889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Eh. If we were concerned about it, we'd just remove the kill switch in the source and re-compile IE, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on / .
if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox .
Eh. If we were concerned about it , we 'd just remove the kill switch in the source and re-compile IE , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on /.
if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.
Eh. If we were concerned about it, we'd just remove the kill switch in the source and re-compile IE, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785617</id>
	<title>Re:Outrage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255893840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would imagine for a lot of people here this isnt automatic. Mozilla is just finishing a job we have been working on since the patch came out. I appreciate the help....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine for a lot of people here this isnt automatic .
Mozilla is just finishing a job we have been working on since the patch came out .
I appreciate the help... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine for a lot of people here this isnt automatic.
Mozilla is just finishing a job we have been working on since the patch came out.
I appreciate the help....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788119</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1255870440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser. They allow for XAML applications to run in Firefox and ClickOnce program distribution. For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case). Isn't this a good thing?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, actually, it is not. Not at all a good thing, quite the opposite. If you are using firefox to run "content" via a closed, windows-only system like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net, you might as well be using IE. In fact that would be better - at least no one would be fooled into thinking they were writing something that would work on firefox when in fact it would only work on Windows/Firefox. </p><blockquote><div><p>There is a lot of interesting comment there, including the fact that while everyone is crying about Microsoft "secretly" adding the plugin and preventing users from disabling it, Mozilla doesn't even give users an option to enable it! Their blocklist is all or nothing. Why doesn't that bother anyone here?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because MS forced the plugin out without user consent and without even a disable option to begin with. Either of which is sufficient in and of itself to classify this bug as malware and remove it whenever encountered without further fuss. </p><blockquote><div><p>Taking this kind of control away from the users is simply unacceptable, doubly so for businesses.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, indeed it is. MS nonetheless has been doing it regularly for decades, and usually get away with it. </p><p>Good to see Mozilla give them what they deserve, even if I do suspect astroturfers like you will wind up sadly blunting the impact as usual.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser .
They allow for XAML applications to run in Firefox and ClickOnce program distribution .
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser , this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies ( .NET in this case ) .
Is n't this a good thing ? No , actually , it is not .
Not at all a good thing , quite the opposite .
If you are using firefox to run " content " via a closed , windows-only system like .net , you might as well be using IE .
In fact that would be better - at least no one would be fooled into thinking they were writing something that would work on firefox when in fact it would only work on Windows/Firefox .
There is a lot of interesting comment there , including the fact that while everyone is crying about Microsoft " secretly " adding the plugin and preventing users from disabling it , Mozilla does n't even give users an option to enable it !
Their blocklist is all or nothing .
Why does n't that bother anyone here ? Because MS forced the plugin out without user consent and without even a disable option to begin with .
Either of which is sufficient in and of itself to classify this bug as malware and remove it whenever encountered without further fuss .
Taking this kind of control away from the users is simply unacceptable , doubly so for businesses.Oh , indeed it is .
MS nonetheless has been doing it regularly for decades , and usually get away with it .
Good to see Mozilla give them what they deserve , even if I do suspect astroturfers like you will wind up sadly blunting the impact as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plugins being discussed do more than just change the User Agent of the browser.
They allow for XAML applications to run in Firefox and ClickOnce program distribution.
For everyone that normally cries about Microsoft pushing IE and trying to lock users into their browser, this is an attempt to allow people to use an alternative browser while still having access to their other Microsoft-centric technologies (.NET in this case).
Isn't this a good thing?No, actually, it is not.
Not at all a good thing, quite the opposite.
If you are using firefox to run "content" via a closed, windows-only system like .net, you might as well be using IE.
In fact that would be better - at least no one would be fooled into thinking they were writing something that would work on firefox when in fact it would only work on Windows/Firefox.
There is a lot of interesting comment there, including the fact that while everyone is crying about Microsoft "secretly" adding the plugin and preventing users from disabling it, Mozilla doesn't even give users an option to enable it!
Their blocklist is all or nothing.
Why doesn't that bother anyone here?Because MS forced the plugin out without user consent and without even a disable option to begin with.
Either of which is sufficient in and of itself to classify this bug as malware and remove it whenever encountered without further fuss.
Taking this kind of control away from the users is simply unacceptable, doubly so for businesses.Oh, indeed it is.
MS nonetheless has been doing it regularly for decades, and usually get away with it.
Good to see Mozilla give them what they deserve, even if I do suspect astroturfers like you will wind up sadly blunting the impact as usual.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783857</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine this from the other side</title>
	<author>jmv</author>
	<datestamp>1255877400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Mozilla had been installing Firefox without the users' consent and prevented the same users from uninstalling it, then yes, Microsoft would have been justified to hit the kill switch. The same way, if it was just a regular Firefox Addon that MS distributed (that the user explicitly installs and can uninstall at any time), I doubt Mozilla would have made a fuss about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Mozilla had been installing Firefox without the users ' consent and prevented the same users from uninstalling it , then yes , Microsoft would have been justified to hit the kill switch .
The same way , if it was just a regular Firefox Addon that MS distributed ( that the user explicitly installs and can uninstall at any time ) , I doubt Mozilla would have made a fuss about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Mozilla had been installing Firefox without the users' consent and prevented the same users from uninstalling it, then yes, Microsoft would have been justified to hit the kill switch.
The same way, if it was just a regular Firefox Addon that MS distributed (that the user explicitly installs and can uninstall at any time), I doubt Mozilla would have made a fuss about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783431</id>
	<title>will MS release patch sooner</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1255872360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Blocklist banned both of plugins without any version limits. Even if MS release updated plugin versions, plugins will remain blocked. I suspect that MS will create new plugs and try to sneak them back to Firefox with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET "security" updates.
</p><p>
I think Mozilla team even considers removing features abused by MS plugs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , Mozilla team , for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner .
Blocklist banned both of plugins without any version limits .
Even if MS release updated plugin versions , plugins will remain blocked .
I suspect that MS will create new plugs and try to sneak them back to Firefox with .NET " security " updates .
I think Mozilla team even considers removing features abused by MS plugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner.
Blocklist banned both of plugins without any version limits.
Even if MS release updated plugin versions, plugins will remain blocked.
I suspect that MS will create new plugs and try to sneak them back to Firefox with .NET "security" updates.
I think Mozilla team even considers removing features abused by MS plugs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788483</id>
	<title>Re:Nuke it with regedit...</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1255874220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or you know, just run Windows update and uninstall the plug-in normally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you know , just run Windows update and uninstall the plug-in normally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you know, just run Windows update and uninstall the plug-in normally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783639</id>
	<title>Cat and mouse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255874940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, when do we expect a microsoft update to change te blocklist? Or will they simply rename their plugin+give it a new extension id?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , when do we expect a microsoft update to change te blocklist ?
Or will they simply rename their plugin + give it a new extension id ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, when do we expect a microsoft update to change te blocklist?
Or will they simply rename their plugin+give it a new extension id?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783377</id>
	<title>Plugin-checker</title>
	<author>Norsefire</author>
	<datestamp>1255871640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The TFA makes a reference to Mozilla's new <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/plugincheck/" title="mozilla.com">Plugin checker</a> [mozilla.com]. I just went there with JavaScript disabled and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<p><div class="quote"><p>You have JavaScript disabled or are using a browser without JavaScript. This Plugin Check page does not work without the awesome power of JavaScript. Please enable this Content Preference and reload the page.

Or disable all your plugins and keep JavaScript disabled... you'd be in good company, that's how <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/262570/" title="lwn.net">RMS rolls</a> [lwn.net].</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The TFA makes a reference to Mozilla 's new Plugin checker [ mozilla.com ] .
I just went there with JavaScript disabled and ...You have JavaScript disabled or are using a browser without JavaScript .
This Plugin Check page does not work without the awesome power of JavaScript .
Please enable this Content Preference and reload the page .
Or disable all your plugins and keep JavaScript disabled... you 'd be in good company , that 's how RMS rolls [ lwn.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TFA makes a reference to Mozilla's new Plugin checker [mozilla.com].
I just went there with JavaScript disabled and ...You have JavaScript disabled or are using a browser without JavaScript.
This Plugin Check page does not work without the awesome power of JavaScript.
Please enable this Content Preference and reload the page.
Or disable all your plugins and keep JavaScript disabled... you'd be in good company, that's how RMS rolls [lwn.net].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786675</id>
	<title>You mean you don't know how, not "can't"...</title>
	<author>rts008</author>
	<datestamp>1255858500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open Firefox, type:"about:config" in the address bar, hit "enter", click on okay/continue on the warning, then scroll down to "extensions.blocklist.x" and change x (or whatever is there instead of x) to "enabled".</p><p>You are limiting yourself by using "can't" in your vocabulary. I was told not to use that word unless I was a lumberjack every time I used that word as a kid.<br>Lumberjacks have a tool to move logs around called a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant\_Hook" title="wikipedia.org">'cant hook'</a> [wikipedia.org], and unless I was moving logs I did not need that word in my vocabulary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Firefox , type : " about : config " in the address bar , hit " enter " , click on okay/continue on the warning , then scroll down to " extensions.blocklist.x " and change x ( or whatever is there instead of x ) to " enabled " .You are limiting yourself by using " ca n't " in your vocabulary .
I was told not to use that word unless I was a lumberjack every time I used that word as a kid.Lumberjacks have a tool to move logs around called a 'cant hook ' [ wikipedia.org ] , and unless I was moving logs I did not need that word in my vocabulary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Firefox, type:"about:config" in the address bar, hit "enter", click on okay/continue on the warning, then scroll down to "extensions.blocklist.x" and change x (or whatever is there instead of x) to "enabled".You are limiting yourself by using "can't" in your vocabulary.
I was told not to use that word unless I was a lumberjack every time I used that word as a kid.Lumberjacks have a tool to move logs around called a 'cant hook' [wikipedia.org], and unless I was moving logs I did not need that word in my vocabulary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784237</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>wasabii</author>
	<datestamp>1255880940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not exactly. It also allows you to run<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net and WPF apps inline in the browser, hosting a CLR instance. Not to mention mapping the ClickOnce file type.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not exactly .
It also allows you to run .Net and WPF apps inline in the browser , hosting a CLR instance .
Not to mention mapping the ClickOnce file type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not exactly.
It also allows you to run .Net and WPF apps inline in the browser, hosting a CLR instance.
Not to mention mapping the ClickOnce file type.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785203</id>
	<title>Re:Outrage</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1255890060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always wonder when I see a comment like this.  Did they not read any of the other comments?  Virtually ever story on Slashdot has some outraged person or another posting a comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always wonder when I see a comment like this .
Did they not read any of the other comments ?
Virtually ever story on Slashdot has some outraged person or another posting a comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always wonder when I see a comment like this.
Did they not read any of the other comments?
Virtually ever story on Slashdot has some outraged person or another posting a comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783943</id>
	<title>How about just disabling /. fanbois</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255878360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fixed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29825033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29877199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29794651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29793503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29813561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29795325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29794793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_2058240_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784099
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29795325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784261
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787349
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785191
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785081
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786511
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787049
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29793503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29794793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29877199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29791031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29787093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29786007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29788715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29794651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29813561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29825033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29792999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784159
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29790869
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29789997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29785905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_2058240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29783469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_2058240.29784195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
