<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_02_2342258</id>
	<title>Microsoft Links Malware Rates To Pirated Windows</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257160020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140227/Microsoft\_links\_malware\_rates\_to\_pirated\_Windows">more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches</a>. 'There is a direct correlation between piracy and the malware infection rate,' said Jeff Williams, head manager of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center. Highlighting research that showed worms to be the most prevalent computer security problem today, Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update. China's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US, but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country. Same for Brazil and France. But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs. China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate &mdash; as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT &mdash; of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2. France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches .
'There is a direct correlation between piracy and the malware infection rate, ' said Jeff Williams , head manager of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center .
Highlighting research that showed worms to be the most prevalent computer security problem today , Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update .
China 's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US , but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country .
Same for Brazil and France .
But Microsoft 's own data does n't always support William 's contention that piracy , and the hesitancy to use Windows Update , leads to more infected PCs .
China , for example , boasted a malware infection rate    as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT    of just 6.7 per thousand , significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US 's rate of 8.2 .
France 's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches.
'There is a direct correlation between piracy and the malware infection rate,' said Jeff Williams, head manager of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center.
Highlighting research that showed worms to be the most prevalent computer security problem today, Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update.
China's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US, but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country.
Same for Brazil and France.
But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs.
China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate — as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT — of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2.
France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957280</id>
	<title>Re:Always on Internet connections?..</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1257168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think botnet operators target their infections.  It would cost them more to select their targets than to just put it everywhere, with the possible exception that they might try to avoid the equivalent of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mil or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mod.uk in their own country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think botnet operators target their infections .
It would cost them more to select their targets than to just put it everywhere , with the possible exception that they might try to avoid the equivalent of .mil or .mod.uk in their own country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think botnet operators target their infections.
It would cost them more to select their targets than to just put it everywhere, with the possible exception that they might try to avoid the equivalent of .mil or .mod.uk in their own country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958276</id>
	<title>Re:Liscensed but uneducated users really at fault</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1257172500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a guy that has Nod32 antivirus installed.</p><p>Unfortunately for him, he doesn't seem to understand how to activate it. Every year he buys a new code, and loses it, without activating. It's now about 900 days since his subscription ended.</p><p>I took pitty and installed avast, but he doesn't know what the little A is, or even care, because he has Nod32 (which a friend recommended), and he thinks he's protected.</p><p>I agree that uneducated users are the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a guy that has Nod32 antivirus installed.Unfortunately for him , he does n't seem to understand how to activate it .
Every year he buys a new code , and loses it , without activating .
It 's now about 900 days since his subscription ended.I took pitty and installed avast , but he does n't know what the little A is , or even care , because he has Nod32 ( which a friend recommended ) , and he thinks he 's protected.I agree that uneducated users are the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a guy that has Nod32 antivirus installed.Unfortunately for him, he doesn't seem to understand how to activate it.
Every year he buys a new code, and loses it, without activating.
It's now about 900 days since his subscription ended.I took pitty and installed avast, but he doesn't know what the little A is, or even care, because he has Nod32 (which a friend recommended), and he thinks he's protected.I agree that uneducated users are the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957544</id>
	<title>What!?!?</title>
	<author>sourICE</author>
	<datestamp>1257169140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US, but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country. Same for Brazil and France. But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs. China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT -- of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2. France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average."</p></div><p>How can Microsoft possibly conclude that Malware is a greater threat to pirated PCs from the previously quoted data? Obviously the US has a higher infection rate than China, with the US being at 8.2 per thousand and China only at 6.7.</p><p>If it were me analyzing the data I'm afraid I would have to conclude that users who use windows update more often and use official copies of windows(US users) are more likely to receive a malware infection than users on pirated copies without using windows update(China).</p><p>I guess I deserve a job at Microsoft if I'm able to better comprehend the statistics than they are, assuming the numbers from this article are even true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China 's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US , but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country .
Same for Brazil and France .
But Microsoft 's own data does n't always support William 's contention that piracy , and the hesitancy to use Windows Update , leads to more infected PCs .
China , for example , boasted a malware infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT -- of just 6.7 per thousand , significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US 's rate of 8.2 .
France 's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average .
" How can Microsoft possibly conclude that Malware is a greater threat to pirated PCs from the previously quoted data ?
Obviously the US has a higher infection rate than China , with the US being at 8.2 per thousand and China only at 6.7.If it were me analyzing the data I 'm afraid I would have to conclude that users who use windows update more often and use official copies of windows ( US users ) are more likely to receive a malware infection than users on pirated copies without using windows update ( China ) .I guess I deserve a job at Microsoft if I 'm able to better comprehend the statistics than they are , assuming the numbers from this article are even true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US, but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country.
Same for Brazil and France.
But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs.
China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT -- of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2.
France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average.
"How can Microsoft possibly conclude that Malware is a greater threat to pirated PCs from the previously quoted data?
Obviously the US has a higher infection rate than China, with the US being at 8.2 per thousand and China only at 6.7.If it were me analyzing the data I'm afraid I would have to conclude that users who use windows update more often and use official copies of windows(US users) are more likely to receive a malware infection than users on pirated copies without using windows update(China).I guess I deserve a job at Microsoft if I'm able to better comprehend the statistics than they are, assuming the numbers from this article are even true.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957762</id>
	<title>Windows Update Downloader</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257169920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This problem has already been solved: <a href="http://www.windowsupdatesdownloader.com/" title="windowsupd...loader.com" rel="nofollow">www.windowsupdatesdownloader.com</a> [windowsupd...loader.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This problem has already been solved : www.windowsupdatesdownloader.com [ windowsupd...loader.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This problem has already been solved: www.windowsupdatesdownloader.com [windowsupd...loader.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958194</id>
	<title>Redefine Malware to include windows keygen</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257172080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem solved. Link proven. That's what passes for innovation at Redmond these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem solved .
Link proven .
That 's what passes for innovation at Redmond these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem solved.
Link proven.
That's what passes for innovation at Redmond these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956994</id>
	<title>Imagine that...</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1257166620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Block unauthorized copies from receiving patches, and unauthorized copies have more malware. <br>Who'dda thunk it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Block unauthorized copies from receiving patches , and unauthorized copies have more malware .
Who'dda thunk it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Block unauthorized copies from receiving patches, and unauthorized copies have more malware.
Who'dda thunk it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960090</id>
	<title>Re:Just suppose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Microsoft is definitely within their rights to insist that people pay for their software.</p><p>Microsoft is NOT within its rights to look over my shoulder every time I turn on my PC. Microsoft is NOT within its rights to continually nag users who "might be a victim of software counterfeiting" and not allow me to dismiss the nag PERMANENTLY. Microsoft is NOT within its rights to "lock" an OEM version of Windows to the hardware (you CANNOT transfer the license to another PC...EVER! No reinstalling, even if the original PC is destroyed.) Microsoft is NOT within its rights to tie the license to the hardware configuration. (Hard drive crash? Upgrade your video card? Add memory? Change too much, and Windows is deactivated, thinking it's been moved to another PC).</p><p>Thank God that WINE has reached the 1.0 milestone, and is getting better day by day. I'd love to see the Linux gaming community take over from Windows' dominance in PC games. (FYI, Sony's Playstation line has always run on an embedded Linux, and OpenGL)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Microsoft is definitely within their rights to insist that people pay for their software.Microsoft is NOT within its rights to look over my shoulder every time I turn on my PC .
Microsoft is NOT within its rights to continually nag users who " might be a victim of software counterfeiting " and not allow me to dismiss the nag PERMANENTLY .
Microsoft is NOT within its rights to " lock " an OEM version of Windows to the hardware ( you CAN NOT transfer the license to another PC...EVER !
No reinstalling , even if the original PC is destroyed .
) Microsoft is NOT within its rights to tie the license to the hardware configuration .
( Hard drive crash ?
Upgrade your video card ?
Add memory ?
Change too much , and Windows is deactivated , thinking it 's been moved to another PC ) .Thank God that WINE has reached the 1.0 milestone , and is getting better day by day .
I 'd love to see the Linux gaming community take over from Windows ' dominance in PC games .
( FYI , Sony 's Playstation line has always run on an embedded Linux , and OpenGL ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Microsoft is definitely within their rights to insist that people pay for their software.Microsoft is NOT within its rights to look over my shoulder every time I turn on my PC.
Microsoft is NOT within its rights to continually nag users who "might be a victim of software counterfeiting" and not allow me to dismiss the nag PERMANENTLY.
Microsoft is NOT within its rights to "lock" an OEM version of Windows to the hardware (you CANNOT transfer the license to another PC...EVER!
No reinstalling, even if the original PC is destroyed.
) Microsoft is NOT within its rights to tie the license to the hardware configuration.
(Hard drive crash?
Upgrade your video card?
Add memory?
Change too much, and Windows is deactivated, thinking it's been moved to another PC).Thank God that WINE has reached the 1.0 milestone, and is getting better day by day.
I'd love to see the Linux gaming community take over from Windows' dominance in PC games.
(FYI, Sony's Playstation line has always run on an embedded Linux, and OpenGL)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961346</id>
	<title>But pirate copies of XP can pass WGA</title>
	<author>severn2j</author>
	<datestamp>1257243960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thing is, WGA doesnt stop pirated copies of Windows (XP at least) from using Windows Update..  There are various "Activation cracks" that will pass WGA and let you update to your hearts content, so I dont think it necessarily matches up that "pirated = trojaned"..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is , WGA doesnt stop pirated copies of Windows ( XP at least ) from using Windows Update.. There are various " Activation cracks " that will pass WGA and let you update to your hearts content , so I dont think it necessarily matches up that " pirated = trojaned " . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is, WGA doesnt stop pirated copies of Windows (XP at least) from using Windows Update..  There are various "Activation cracks" that will pass WGA and let you update to your hearts content, so I dont think it necessarily matches up that "pirated = trojaned"..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956970</id>
	<title>Users are leery of applying patches because?</title>
	<author>CmdrPorno</author>
	<datestamp>1257166500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And users (with both legit and pirated copies) are leery of applying patches because of Microsoft Genuine Advantage and its ilk.  Does this come as a surprise to them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And users ( with both legit and pirated copies ) are leery of applying patches because of Microsoft Genuine Advantage and its ilk .
Does this come as a surprise to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And users (with both legit and pirated copies) are leery of applying patches because of Microsoft Genuine Advantage and its ilk.
Does this come as a surprise to them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960016</id>
	<title>Re:Just suppose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooner or later Automatic Updates will offer (or silently install if you're set to "fully automatic"), and every now and then (far more often than MS is willing to admit!), a "genuine" copy of Windows is flagged as "pirated." Had it happen to a friend of mine. Wouldn't be surprised if MS hid WGA inside another update, or stopped offering certain updates if WGA wasn't installed (installing a new copy of Windows requires you to download MS Installer 3.0, then has another round of updates after that, for instance). As long as WGA (or Office Geniune Advantage) exists, I'm going to look over every offered update CAREFULLY before downloading ANY of them...had a friend on XP have her installation flagged as "pirated" as soon as WGA installed itself. Not happy, not trusting MS as far as I can throw a CD...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooner or later Automatic Updates will offer ( or silently install if you 're set to " fully automatic " ) , and every now and then ( far more often than MS is willing to admit !
) , a " genuine " copy of Windows is flagged as " pirated .
" Had it happen to a friend of mine .
Would n't be surprised if MS hid WGA inside another update , or stopped offering certain updates if WGA was n't installed ( installing a new copy of Windows requires you to download MS Installer 3.0 , then has another round of updates after that , for instance ) .
As long as WGA ( or Office Geniune Advantage ) exists , I 'm going to look over every offered update CAREFULLY before downloading ANY of them...had a friend on XP have her installation flagged as " pirated " as soon as WGA installed itself .
Not happy , not trusting MS as far as I can throw a CD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooner or later Automatic Updates will offer (or silently install if you're set to "fully automatic"), and every now and then (far more often than MS is willing to admit!
), a "genuine" copy of Windows is flagged as "pirated.
" Had it happen to a friend of mine.
Wouldn't be surprised if MS hid WGA inside another update, or stopped offering certain updates if WGA wasn't installed (installing a new copy of Windows requires you to download MS Installer 3.0, then has another round of updates after that, for instance).
As long as WGA (or Office Geniune Advantage) exists, I'm going to look over every offered update CAREFULLY before downloading ANY of them...had a friend on XP have her installation flagged as "pirated" as soon as WGA installed itself.
Not happy, not trusting MS as far as I can throw a CD...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960588</id>
	<title>Office Updates</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1257190320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A tad off topic but still relating to patching Microsoft stuff.  We run WSUS at work to patch machines.  I absolutely despise approving the Microsoft Office security updates and service packs, especially with OEM versions of Office.  Every time I do so, it seems to screw up registration on Office XP and Office 2003 installations.  I have a handful of users who can't get into office after the application of updates.  Fantastic.  In most of those cases when I try to do the internet registration it fails and I have to spend the time to call the phone registration system.  This can take 10 minutes or so per machine.  Absolutely irritating.  And yes, all of our software is legit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A tad off topic but still relating to patching Microsoft stuff .
We run WSUS at work to patch machines .
I absolutely despise approving the Microsoft Office security updates and service packs , especially with OEM versions of Office .
Every time I do so , it seems to screw up registration on Office XP and Office 2003 installations .
I have a handful of users who ca n't get into office after the application of updates .
Fantastic. In most of those cases when I try to do the internet registration it fails and I have to spend the time to call the phone registration system .
This can take 10 minutes or so per machine .
Absolutely irritating .
And yes , all of our software is legit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A tad off topic but still relating to patching Microsoft stuff.
We run WSUS at work to patch machines.
I absolutely despise approving the Microsoft Office security updates and service packs, especially with OEM versions of Office.
Every time I do so, it seems to screw up registration on Office XP and Office 2003 installations.
I have a handful of users who can't get into office after the application of updates.
Fantastic.  In most of those cases when I try to do the internet registration it fails and I have to spend the time to call the phone registration system.
This can take 10 minutes or so per machine.
Absolutely irritating.
And yes, all of our software is legit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960764</id>
	<title>Slashdot may not like it but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257278700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is absolutely true. Pirates are afraid to let their computer phone home for updates, including security updates.</p><p>It is NOT WORTH IT. They sit there with an outdated copy of windows instead of shelling out a few bucks for XP, using a freebie like Ubuntu, or just letting their pirated copy update itself.</p><p>Stupid people doing stupid things. They make up a good portion of the idiots not smart enough to have an Internet connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is absolutely true .
Pirates are afraid to let their computer phone home for updates , including security updates.It is NOT WORTH IT .
They sit there with an outdated copy of windows instead of shelling out a few bucks for XP , using a freebie like Ubuntu , or just letting their pirated copy update itself.Stupid people doing stupid things .
They make up a good portion of the idiots not smart enough to have an Internet connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is absolutely true.
Pirates are afraid to let their computer phone home for updates, including security updates.It is NOT WORTH IT.
They sit there with an outdated copy of windows instead of shelling out a few bucks for XP, using a freebie like Ubuntu, or just letting their pirated copy update itself.Stupid people doing stupid things.
They make up a good portion of the idiots not smart enough to have an Internet connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961762</id>
	<title>If M$ hadn't started treating users like companies</title>
	<author>Tomsk70</author>
	<datestamp>1257249960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...we'd all still be downloading versions of Win/ Office/ Server/ Whatever and using keys of off mscracks.com (or the like) - then ranting about how good they were when at work, meaning the company would then have to legitimately buy copies to use so that they wouldn't get in trouble when audited. And we wouldn't be dealing with mal/spy/crapware when running a crack just to reinstall a copy of Windows simply because the motherboard blew up rather than spend another &pound;100 that M$ do not need *or deserve*.</p><p>Before anyone starts shouting, this was the way of things for *over a decade* - and I don't remember seeing Bill Gates (or anyone from M$) in the dole queue during that time. Of course, OEM copies of Windows/ Office were still being sold with new PC's, so it was only the geeks/ friends &amp; family of geeks that didn't pay. It was only once they decided that they weren't quite earning enough profit that the whole 'genuine' path was taken - and now here we are...with M$ in exactly the same situation as the music/ movie companies - every time they try to protect their obscenely overpriced products, they get leapfrogged by cracking crews, and it's they alone who pretend that somehow one day these cracking crews are going to go away by bringing out multiple versions of their Genuine Advantage Guff (while simultaneously pretending that their products were always good value for money - how many times did the music industry get investigated for overpricing CD's?), which in turn make folks avoid updating, and oh look....the number of viruses has gone up. Curse those users who won't pay another &pound;100 for software they already bought with a machine!</p><p>I've always considered M$ to have no moral ground whatsovever anyway, due to their licensing system - if I pay for two pieces of software for two seperate machines, I consider it morally wrong to then demand money to allow them to talk to each other; something M$ have no trouble in doing with their stupid and labyrithine client licensing system. Symantec are the same with Backup Exec - the functionality is built in, but they see nothing wrong with demanding thousands for a key to allow you to actually use it. Imagine if you bought a car with an MP3 player built in, but you were only allowed to look at it until you paid the car company more money...that's what's accepted in the software industry these days, but it's gone on for so long people have gotten used to it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>I must have installed versions of Windows at least a thousand times in the last twenty years, in many cases for testing (where it was deleted afterwards). Is anyone seriously going to suggest that I should have paid for every single copy? And don't give me the Technet excuse either - every time I install, I'm increasing M$'s user base, and encouraging the companies I have contracted for to use M$ software (which they *have* to pay for). I have never, and will never accept that I have to pay M$ in order to sell their products for them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...we 'd all still be downloading versions of Win/ Office/ Server/ Whatever and using keys of off mscracks.com ( or the like ) - then ranting about how good they were when at work , meaning the company would then have to legitimately buy copies to use so that they would n't get in trouble when audited .
And we would n't be dealing with mal/spy/crapware when running a crack just to reinstall a copy of Windows simply because the motherboard blew up rather than spend another   100 that M $ do not need * or deserve * .Before anyone starts shouting , this was the way of things for * over a decade * - and I do n't remember seeing Bill Gates ( or anyone from M $ ) in the dole queue during that time .
Of course , OEM copies of Windows/ Office were still being sold with new PC 's , so it was only the geeks/ friends &amp; family of geeks that did n't pay .
It was only once they decided that they were n't quite earning enough profit that the whole 'genuine ' path was taken - and now here we are...with M $ in exactly the same situation as the music/ movie companies - every time they try to protect their obscenely overpriced products , they get leapfrogged by cracking crews , and it 's they alone who pretend that somehow one day these cracking crews are going to go away by bringing out multiple versions of their Genuine Advantage Guff ( while simultaneously pretending that their products were always good value for money - how many times did the music industry get investigated for overpricing CD 's ?
) , which in turn make folks avoid updating , and oh look....the number of viruses has gone up .
Curse those users who wo n't pay another   100 for software they already bought with a machine ! I 've always considered M $ to have no moral ground whatsovever anyway , due to their licensing system - if I pay for two pieces of software for two seperate machines , I consider it morally wrong to then demand money to allow them to talk to each other ; something M $ have no trouble in doing with their stupid and labyrithine client licensing system .
Symantec are the same with Backup Exec - the functionality is built in , but they see nothing wrong with demanding thousands for a key to allow you to actually use it .
Imagine if you bought a car with an MP3 player built in , but you were only allowed to look at it until you paid the car company more money...that 's what 's accepted in the software industry these days , but it 's gone on for so long people have gotten used to it : - ( I must have installed versions of Windows at least a thousand times in the last twenty years , in many cases for testing ( where it was deleted afterwards ) .
Is anyone seriously going to suggest that I should have paid for every single copy ?
And do n't give me the Technet excuse either - every time I install , I 'm increasing M $ 's user base , and encouraging the companies I have contracted for to use M $ software ( which they * have * to pay for ) .
I have never , and will never accept that I have to pay M $ in order to sell their products for them : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we'd all still be downloading versions of Win/ Office/ Server/ Whatever and using keys of off mscracks.com (or the like) - then ranting about how good they were when at work, meaning the company would then have to legitimately buy copies to use so that they wouldn't get in trouble when audited.
And we wouldn't be dealing with mal/spy/crapware when running a crack just to reinstall a copy of Windows simply because the motherboard blew up rather than spend another £100 that M$ do not need *or deserve*.Before anyone starts shouting, this was the way of things for *over a decade* - and I don't remember seeing Bill Gates (or anyone from M$) in the dole queue during that time.
Of course, OEM copies of Windows/ Office were still being sold with new PC's, so it was only the geeks/ friends &amp; family of geeks that didn't pay.
It was only once they decided that they weren't quite earning enough profit that the whole 'genuine' path was taken - and now here we are...with M$ in exactly the same situation as the music/ movie companies - every time they try to protect their obscenely overpriced products, they get leapfrogged by cracking crews, and it's they alone who pretend that somehow one day these cracking crews are going to go away by bringing out multiple versions of their Genuine Advantage Guff (while simultaneously pretending that their products were always good value for money - how many times did the music industry get investigated for overpricing CD's?
), which in turn make folks avoid updating, and oh look....the number of viruses has gone up.
Curse those users who won't pay another £100 for software they already bought with a machine!I've always considered M$ to have no moral ground whatsovever anyway, due to their licensing system - if I pay for two pieces of software for two seperate machines, I consider it morally wrong to then demand money to allow them to talk to each other; something M$ have no trouble in doing with their stupid and labyrithine client licensing system.
Symantec are the same with Backup Exec - the functionality is built in, but they see nothing wrong with demanding thousands for a key to allow you to actually use it.
Imagine if you bought a car with an MP3 player built in, but you were only allowed to look at it until you paid the car company more money...that's what's accepted in the software industry these days, but it's gone on for so long people have gotten used to it :-(I must have installed versions of Windows at least a thousand times in the last twenty years, in many cases for testing (where it was deleted afterwards).
Is anyone seriously going to suggest that I should have paid for every single copy?
And don't give me the Technet excuse either - every time I install, I'm increasing M$'s user base, and encouraging the companies I have contracted for to use M$ software (which they *have* to pay for).
I have never, and will never accept that I have to pay M$ in order to sell their products for them :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29970294</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be what microsoft wanted</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1257250080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried that, but they didn't believe me. I could try it again, I suppose - maybe I'd get a more helpful person - but it's less hassle going around them.</p><p>I suppose another issue is I'm an avid nLiter, so I reinstall my OS quite often. (it makes it so easy, and with addons most software can be installed automatically, which means the only steps are putting a DVD in the drive and picking a partition)</p><p>To them it probably looks like I reinstalled my OS on ~4 different machines about 30 times.</p><p>I would've thought their phone-home DRM would indicate the key was only active on one machine at a time, but I guess not.</p><p>Someone else suggested I reactivate the key on the other machine, but I ask... why? That requires phoning them again, and doesn't deal with the issue. <i>I</i> play games - not my parents. Ubuntu works fine for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried that , but they did n't believe me .
I could try it again , I suppose - maybe I 'd get a more helpful person - but it 's less hassle going around them.I suppose another issue is I 'm an avid nLiter , so I reinstall my OS quite often .
( it makes it so easy , and with addons most software can be installed automatically , which means the only steps are putting a DVD in the drive and picking a partition ) To them it probably looks like I reinstalled my OS on ~ 4 different machines about 30 times.I would 've thought their phone-home DRM would indicate the key was only active on one machine at a time , but I guess not.Someone else suggested I reactivate the key on the other machine , but I ask... why ? That requires phoning them again , and does n't deal with the issue .
I play games - not my parents .
Ubuntu works fine for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried that, but they didn't believe me.
I could try it again, I suppose - maybe I'd get a more helpful person - but it's less hassle going around them.I suppose another issue is I'm an avid nLiter, so I reinstall my OS quite often.
(it makes it so easy, and with addons most software can be installed automatically, which means the only steps are putting a DVD in the drive and picking a partition)To them it probably looks like I reinstalled my OS on ~4 different machines about 30 times.I would've thought their phone-home DRM would indicate the key was only active on one machine at a time, but I guess not.Someone else suggested I reactivate the key on the other machine, but I ask... why? That requires phoning them again, and doesn't deal with the issue.
I play games - not my parents.
Ubuntu works fine for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29980038</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1257010440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very true. I still remember the days of trying to remove some neat "bundled" crap/spyware that HP used to install, like Vongo. Or some of Microsoft's short lived "search anything, send the info to Microsoft" attempts, or some of Microsoft's earlier WMP editions that refused to not send information to Microsoft (well, to someone anyway...), no matter what privacy and "dont download additional content" and "dont verify digital rights" options you picked. And those were all fresh, out of the box setups or fresh out of the box setups with a WMP update that came straight from Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true .
I still remember the days of trying to remove some neat " bundled " crap/spyware that HP used to install , like Vongo .
Or some of Microsoft 's short lived " search anything , send the info to Microsoft " attempts , or some of Microsoft 's earlier WMP editions that refused to not send information to Microsoft ( well , to someone anyway... ) , no matter what privacy and " dont download additional content " and " dont verify digital rights " options you picked .
And those were all fresh , out of the box setups or fresh out of the box setups with a WMP update that came straight from Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true.
I still remember the days of trying to remove some neat "bundled" crap/spyware that HP used to install, like Vongo.
Or some of Microsoft's short lived "search anything, send the info to Microsoft" attempts, or some of Microsoft's earlier WMP editions that refused to not send information to Microsoft (well, to someone anyway...), no matter what privacy and "dont download additional content" and "dont verify digital rights" options you picked.
And those were all fresh, out of the box setups or fresh out of the box setups with a WMP update that came straight from Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29962174</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I always found interesting was that pirates do update their software though it is usually done on a monthly basis with some pirate group releasing a up to date version of MS windows. eg: (August Edition)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I always found interesting was that pirates do update their software though it is usually done on a monthly basis with some pirate group releasing a up to date version of MS windows .
eg : ( August Edition )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I always found interesting was that pirates do update their software though it is usually done on a monthly basis with some pirate group releasing a up to date version of MS windows.
eg: (August Edition)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956942</id>
	<title>Just suppose...</title>
	<author>ichbineinneuben</author>
	<datestamp>1257166320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Suppose it was possible to apply security patches <i>without</i> installing Windows Genuine Advantage (malware by anyone's definition except Microsoft's).  Would that make a difference?  Perhaps what they are seeing is really just a choice users make between Microsoft malware and "aftermarket" malware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage ( malware by anyone 's definition except Microsoft 's ) .
Would that make a difference ?
Perhaps what they are seeing is really just a choice users make between Microsoft malware and " aftermarket " malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage (malware by anyone's definition except Microsoft's).
Would that make a difference?
Perhaps what they are seeing is really just a choice users make between Microsoft malware and "aftermarket" malware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958606</id>
	<title>Re:Broadband speed might be more of an issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would attribute that to mostly being because although they had "broadband" their speed even during off hours were more around the range of 64 to 128 Kbps with high latency due to over subscription. Can any of you imagine downloading Windows XP SP3 over that kind of connection?</p></div><p>Yes, I'm an American who doesn't live in a big city.  ):</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would attribute that to mostly being because although they had " broadband " their speed even during off hours were more around the range of 64 to 128 Kbps with high latency due to over subscription .
Can any of you imagine downloading Windows XP SP3 over that kind of connection ? Yes , I 'm an American who does n't live in a big city .
) :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would attribute that to mostly being because although they had "broadband" their speed even during off hours were more around the range of 64 to 128 Kbps with high latency due to over subscription.
Can any of you imagine downloading Windows XP SP3 over that kind of connection?Yes, I'm an American who doesn't live in a big city.
):
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29962772</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1257259980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So...you expect MS to pony up bandwidth to support users that didn't pay for their operating systems?</p><p>IMHO, MS has no obligation to support pirates.</p><p>Yes they should get some flak for writing an insecure OS. But it's the actual pirates themselves that, knowing full well MS isn't going to do jack shit to support them, decide to install an unpatchable OS in the first place.</p></div></blockquote><p>Whether I expect it or not is irrelevant. <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-pirate-bootleg-security-patches,7666.html" title="tomshardware.com" rel="nofollow">MS *is* releasing security patches without worrying about WGA.</a> [tomshardware.com] They correctly realise that running an unpatched Windows is bad for everybody, and if you get exploited it degrades the experience for everybody, even their paying customers. They'll block you through Windows Update, but if you leave Automatic Updates on, then your pirated copy of Windows will still download/update security updates, including new versions of MSIE and security patches. I don't know whether it'll also update service packs, but as service packs are usually mostly security fixes/changes, my guess would be that those will update as well. It's something I can't test, as the copy of Windows on my games laptop is legitimate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So...you expect MS to pony up bandwidth to support users that did n't pay for their operating systems ? IMHO , MS has no obligation to support pirates.Yes they should get some flak for writing an insecure OS .
But it 's the actual pirates themselves that , knowing full well MS is n't going to do jack shit to support them , decide to install an unpatchable OS in the first place.Whether I expect it or not is irrelevant .
MS * is * releasing security patches without worrying about WGA .
[ tomshardware.com ] They correctly realise that running an unpatched Windows is bad for everybody , and if you get exploited it degrades the experience for everybody , even their paying customers .
They 'll block you through Windows Update , but if you leave Automatic Updates on , then your pirated copy of Windows will still download/update security updates , including new versions of MSIE and security patches .
I do n't know whether it 'll also update service packs , but as service packs are usually mostly security fixes/changes , my guess would be that those will update as well .
It 's something I ca n't test , as the copy of Windows on my games laptop is legitimate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...you expect MS to pony up bandwidth to support users that didn't pay for their operating systems?IMHO, MS has no obligation to support pirates.Yes they should get some flak for writing an insecure OS.
But it's the actual pirates themselves that, knowing full well MS isn't going to do jack shit to support them, decide to install an unpatchable OS in the first place.Whether I expect it or not is irrelevant.
MS *is* releasing security patches without worrying about WGA.
[tomshardware.com] They correctly realise that running an unpatched Windows is bad for everybody, and if you get exploited it degrades the experience for everybody, even their paying customers.
They'll block you through Windows Update, but if you leave Automatic Updates on, then your pirated copy of Windows will still download/update security updates, including new versions of MSIE and security patches.
I don't know whether it'll also update service packs, but as service packs are usually mostly security fixes/changes, my guess would be that those will update as well.
It's something I can't test, as the copy of Windows on my games laptop is legitimate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957178</id>
	<title>Slanderous</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1257167640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no reason for there to be any high level of virus spread amongst pirates. Simply because pirates are often trapped together on a boat with no women for perhaps weeks or months at a time shows nothing. Is Microsoft slandering the pirate community, hinting at homosexual rendezvous? I for one am offended and suggest we 'make im walk the plank, yarrr'</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no reason for there to be any high level of virus spread amongst pirates .
Simply because pirates are often trapped together on a boat with no women for perhaps weeks or months at a time shows nothing .
Is Microsoft slandering the pirate community , hinting at homosexual rendezvous ?
I for one am offended and suggest we 'make im walk the plank , yarrr'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no reason for there to be any high level of virus spread amongst pirates.
Simply because pirates are often trapped together on a boat with no women for perhaps weeks or months at a time shows nothing.
Is Microsoft slandering the pirate community, hinting at homosexual rendezvous?
I for one am offended and suggest we 'make im walk the plank, yarrr'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959208</id>
	<title>Re:Stands to reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No, they're going to use it to look up www.saucywenches.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</i> </p><p>The site you recommend yields no saucy wenches and my expensive, new, main computer no longer works</p><p>Pls advise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they 're going to use it to look up www.saucywenches.com .... The site you recommend yields no saucy wenches and my expensive , new , main computer no longer worksPls advise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they're going to use it to look up www.saucywenches.com .... The site you recommend yields no saucy wenches and my expensive, new, main computer no longer worksPls advise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961986</id>
	<title>People who install software from untrusted sources</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257252600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get malware? stop the presses!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get malware ?
stop the presses !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get malware?
stop the presses!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959654</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>{Citation needed}  What is your source for "pirate" software being a "large" source of malware?  Or are you just spouting the company line that the RIAA and MPAA would like you to believe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>{ Citation needed } What is your source for " pirate " software being a " large " source of malware ?
Or are you just spouting the company line that the RIAA and MPAA would like you to believe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>{Citation needed}  What is your source for "pirate" software being a "large" source of malware?
Or are you just spouting the company line that the RIAA and MPAA would like you to believe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958508</id>
	<title>Re:Always on Internet connections?..</title>
	<author>Tynin</author>
	<datestamp>1257173700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just got done working on my grandparents machine. They only have dial up, with one phone line in the house. They connect, check their email via POP3, and disconnect. They had 336 viruses that I could find (many of them worms). I don't think connection times matter that much, especially since this was over a 56k modem only connected a few times a week for 10-20 minutes at a shot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got done working on my grandparents machine .
They only have dial up , with one phone line in the house .
They connect , check their email via POP3 , and disconnect .
They had 336 viruses that I could find ( many of them worms ) .
I do n't think connection times matter that much , especially since this was over a 56k modem only connected a few times a week for 10-20 minutes at a shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got done working on my grandparents machine.
They only have dial up, with one phone line in the house.
They connect, check their email via POP3, and disconnect.
They had 336 viruses that I could find (many of them worms).
I don't think connection times matter that much, especially since this was over a 56k modem only connected a few times a week for 10-20 minutes at a shot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957134</id>
	<title>Broadband speed might be more of an issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just recently returned from a trip to India and found that many of the cyber cafes and family homes that I visited were not running the latest service-packs for Windows.  I would attribute that to mostly being because although they had "broadband" their speed even during off hours were more around the range of 64 to 128 Kbps with high latency due to over subscription.  Can any of you imagine downloading Windows XP SP3 over that kind of connection?  (Setup a speed limiter on your next bit torrent download at about 5 KBs/40 kbps and see how long that file takes to transfer) Along with the problem that most computers are purchased as cheaply as possible so they frequently run with the minimum amount of ram possible, making the use of Antivirus software and the latest Service packs way too slow to even browse the web.</p><p>Security patches and Anti-virus updates that are several megabytes a piece are fine for someone with a lowly 512 kbps broadband connection, but understand that most people in these countries like China and India still have very large modem and slow DSL that is extremely over subscribed at the ISP.</p><p>Even here in the US there are many people that have dial-up even if other options are available because they don't feel the broadband options provide a good cost/performance ratio.  $40 for 512kbps WISP connection or $10 for a cheap dial-up connection.  $480 + install for the first year, or $120 for a year of dial-up over a phone line they already have...</p><p>Please keep in mind that although 5+ Mbps broadband is available in most Metro markets there are still a lot of people that have much slower connections making many online services out of reach (Steam, hulu, and to some security patches).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just recently returned from a trip to India and found that many of the cyber cafes and family homes that I visited were not running the latest service-packs for Windows .
I would attribute that to mostly being because although they had " broadband " their speed even during off hours were more around the range of 64 to 128 Kbps with high latency due to over subscription .
Can any of you imagine downloading Windows XP SP3 over that kind of connection ?
( Setup a speed limiter on your next bit torrent download at about 5 KBs/40 kbps and see how long that file takes to transfer ) Along with the problem that most computers are purchased as cheaply as possible so they frequently run with the minimum amount of ram possible , making the use of Antivirus software and the latest Service packs way too slow to even browse the web.Security patches and Anti-virus updates that are several megabytes a piece are fine for someone with a lowly 512 kbps broadband connection , but understand that most people in these countries like China and India still have very large modem and slow DSL that is extremely over subscribed at the ISP.Even here in the US there are many people that have dial-up even if other options are available because they do n't feel the broadband options provide a good cost/performance ratio .
$ 40 for 512kbps WISP connection or $ 10 for a cheap dial-up connection .
$ 480 + install for the first year , or $ 120 for a year of dial-up over a phone line they already have...Please keep in mind that although 5 + Mbps broadband is available in most Metro markets there are still a lot of people that have much slower connections making many online services out of reach ( Steam , hulu , and to some security patches ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just recently returned from a trip to India and found that many of the cyber cafes and family homes that I visited were not running the latest service-packs for Windows.
I would attribute that to mostly being because although they had "broadband" their speed even during off hours were more around the range of 64 to 128 Kbps with high latency due to over subscription.
Can any of you imagine downloading Windows XP SP3 over that kind of connection?
(Setup a speed limiter on your next bit torrent download at about 5 KBs/40 kbps and see how long that file takes to transfer) Along with the problem that most computers are purchased as cheaply as possible so they frequently run with the minimum amount of ram possible, making the use of Antivirus software and the latest Service packs way too slow to even browse the web.Security patches and Anti-virus updates that are several megabytes a piece are fine for someone with a lowly 512 kbps broadband connection, but understand that most people in these countries like China and India still have very large modem and slow DSL that is extremely over subscribed at the ISP.Even here in the US there are many people that have dial-up even if other options are available because they don't feel the broadband options provide a good cost/performance ratio.
$40 for 512kbps WISP connection or $10 for a cheap dial-up connection.
$480 + install for the first year, or $120 for a year of dial-up over a phone line they already have...Please keep in mind that although 5+ Mbps broadband is available in most Metro markets there are still a lot of people that have much slower connections making many online services out of reach (Steam, hulu, and to some security patches).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957180</id>
	<title>Liscensed but uneducated users really at fault</title>
	<author>elvis15</author>
	<datestamp>1257167640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously Microsoft doesn't want to acknowledge the large portion of their <i>licensed</i> users who set Windows to do their updates automatically but have never touched an antivirus or security software. I've worked in IT and with the Joe Public users and that was by far the biggest problem out there.<br> <br>People would often call in with viruses/malware they've just been living with on a 2 year old computer, and when you asked them about what they use for antivirus, they wouldn't have a clue. "I used that link that was on my desktop when I bought it," they would say. Well, that 30 day trial will get you into more trouble than not applying your windows updates, especially when they're opening up all those emails from disposed Nigerian dictators.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously Microsoft does n't want to acknowledge the large portion of their licensed users who set Windows to do their updates automatically but have never touched an antivirus or security software .
I 've worked in IT and with the Joe Public users and that was by far the biggest problem out there .
People would often call in with viruses/malware they 've just been living with on a 2 year old computer , and when you asked them about what they use for antivirus , they would n't have a clue .
" I used that link that was on my desktop when I bought it , " they would say .
Well , that 30 day trial will get you into more trouble than not applying your windows updates , especially when they 're opening up all those emails from disposed Nigerian dictators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously Microsoft doesn't want to acknowledge the large portion of their licensed users who set Windows to do their updates automatically but have never touched an antivirus or security software.
I've worked in IT and with the Joe Public users and that was by far the biggest problem out there.
People would often call in with viruses/malware they've just been living with on a 2 year old computer, and when you asked them about what they use for antivirus, they wouldn't have a clue.
"I used that link that was on my desktop when I bought it," they would say.
Well, that 30 day trial will get you into more trouble than not applying your windows updates, especially when they're opening up all those emails from disposed Nigerian dictators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963134</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1257262080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Automatic updates will usually be enabled out of the box, and that downloads/patches overnight so as to not affect the average computer user. It can be configured to download security patches only.</p><p>You probably should have your Windows updating security patches too. Not doing that is like running Apache 2.2.0 on your web server... there haven't been any major "service packs" for that software, but we're up to 2.2.14 because of a large number of security and exploit fixes that've been included. Ok, you don't need the latest video poker game extra for your Windows, but you probably do need those patches that address issue described in KB123456 or whatever... those are usually functionality/bugfixes, and often exploit/hole fixes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Automatic updates will usually be enabled out of the box , and that downloads/patches overnight so as to not affect the average computer user .
It can be configured to download security patches only.You probably should have your Windows updating security patches too .
Not doing that is like running Apache 2.2.0 on your web server... there have n't been any major " service packs " for that software , but we 're up to 2.2.14 because of a large number of security and exploit fixes that 've been included .
Ok , you do n't need the latest video poker game extra for your Windows , but you probably do need those patches that address issue described in KB123456 or whatever... those are usually functionality/bugfixes , and often exploit/hole fixes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Automatic updates will usually be enabled out of the box, and that downloads/patches overnight so as to not affect the average computer user.
It can be configured to download security patches only.You probably should have your Windows updating security patches too.
Not doing that is like running Apache 2.2.0 on your web server... there haven't been any major "service packs" for that software, but we're up to 2.2.14 because of a large number of security and exploit fixes that've been included.
Ok, you don't need the latest video poker game extra for your Windows, but you probably do need those patches that address issue described in KB123456 or whatever... those are usually functionality/bugfixes, and often exploit/hole fixes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957508</id>
	<title>Re:safer users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying the people who fall for phishing scams and untrusted unvetted code overlap significantly with the ones who run Windows?  Whodathunk?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying the people who fall for phishing scams and untrusted unvetted code overlap significantly with the ones who run Windows ?
Whodathunk ? ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying the people who fall for phishing scams and untrusted unvetted code overlap significantly with the ones who run Windows?
Whodathunk? ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957110</id>
	<title>Always on Internet connections?..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT</p></div></blockquote><p>Wouldn't the rates of infections be <em>severely</em> affected by how long the machine stays online? Because that increases both &mdash; the opportunity to infect the machine, and its value for the hijacker (as a spam-relay)?

</p><p>With many organizations simply blocking the entire A- and B-class networks from China, even an always-connected server in China is not as hot a target as the one in US.

</p><p>Also, one would expect, the machine owners' expected wealth to be a factor &mdash; some viruses blackmail the owner by threatening to delete their files... The poor Chinese may not even have a Paypal account to pay off the scumbags, so why go after them?

</p><p>Accounting for all this may change the published statistics quite a bit...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRTWould n't the rates of infections be severely affected by how long the machine stays online ?
Because that increases both    the opportunity to infect the machine , and its value for the hijacker ( as a spam-relay ) ?
With many organizations simply blocking the entire A- and B-class networks from China , even an always-connected server in China is not as hot a target as the one in US .
Also , one would expect , the machine owners ' expected wealth to be a factor    some viruses blackmail the owner by threatening to delete their files... The poor Chinese may not even have a Paypal account to pay off the scumbags , so why go after them ?
Accounting for all this may change the published statistics quite a bit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRTWouldn't the rates of infections be severely affected by how long the machine stays online?
Because that increases both — the opportunity to infect the machine, and its value for the hijacker (as a spam-relay)?
With many organizations simply blocking the entire A- and B-class networks from China, even an always-connected server in China is not as hot a target as the one in US.
Also, one would expect, the machine owners' expected wealth to be a factor — some viruses blackmail the owner by threatening to delete their files... The poor Chinese may not even have a Paypal account to pay off the scumbags, so why go after them?
Accounting for all this may change the published statistics quite a bit...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29962678</id>
	<title>Malware is the infected OS fault</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1257259260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Malware is the infected OS fault for not being a good system from the get go, and M$ is guilty of that for sure, but also, we know Linux is free and no one wants to pay for this stuff, so if M$ really wanted to force a whopping move and force to shut down all pirated copies, you would have an overnight movement so big towards linux, that the market shares would probably be more like 50/50.</p><p>For all the pirated copies you still take those into consideration for counting market shares (M$ does), then you add to the fact , these people doing this do no want to spend money or else they would have legal copies, says they probably would not buy a copy of windows, but download linux.</p><p>If M$ was smart, they should offer for 19.99$ a one time transfer of all patches and updates, to all users that need them (obviously the pirates) and say no strings attached, then once they have the emails, and had their money , send not only the patches that make the internet safer for EVERYBODY, but also be able to use their emails to advertise why they should buy a legal copy of windows...hell, if they came out with cool stuff all the time like Apple IPhones, Windows would sell itself, no?</p><p>Problem is M$ is too greedy. Think about it, all pirated version are now patched and M$ has 19.99$ * each pirated copy, for future development. That would get them easily a 10 million copies of windows * 20.00 = 200 million easy...without doing anything but making the internet safer.</p><p>Balmer sucks, that's why M$ is the way they are.....stop throwing chairs, and start thinking with your head!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Malware is the infected OS fault for not being a good system from the get go , and M $ is guilty of that for sure , but also , we know Linux is free and no one wants to pay for this stuff , so if M $ really wanted to force a whopping move and force to shut down all pirated copies , you would have an overnight movement so big towards linux , that the market shares would probably be more like 50/50.For all the pirated copies you still take those into consideration for counting market shares ( M $ does ) , then you add to the fact , these people doing this do no want to spend money or else they would have legal copies , says they probably would not buy a copy of windows , but download linux.If M $ was smart , they should offer for 19.99 $ a one time transfer of all patches and updates , to all users that need them ( obviously the pirates ) and say no strings attached , then once they have the emails , and had their money , send not only the patches that make the internet safer for EVERYBODY , but also be able to use their emails to advertise why they should buy a legal copy of windows...hell , if they came out with cool stuff all the time like Apple IPhones , Windows would sell itself , no ? Problem is M $ is too greedy .
Think about it , all pirated version are now patched and M $ has 19.99 $ * each pirated copy , for future development .
That would get them easily a 10 million copies of windows * 20.00 = 200 million easy...without doing anything but making the internet safer.Balmer sucks , that 's why M $ is the way they are.....stop throwing chairs , and start thinking with your head !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malware is the infected OS fault for not being a good system from the get go, and M$ is guilty of that for sure, but also, we know Linux is free and no one wants to pay for this stuff, so if M$ really wanted to force a whopping move and force to shut down all pirated copies, you would have an overnight movement so big towards linux, that the market shares would probably be more like 50/50.For all the pirated copies you still take those into consideration for counting market shares (M$ does), then you add to the fact , these people doing this do no want to spend money or else they would have legal copies, says they probably would not buy a copy of windows, but download linux.If M$ was smart, they should offer for 19.99$ a one time transfer of all patches and updates, to all users that need them (obviously the pirates) and say no strings attached, then once they have the emails, and had their money , send not only the patches that make the internet safer for EVERYBODY, but also be able to use their emails to advertise why they should buy a legal copy of windows...hell, if they came out with cool stuff all the time like Apple IPhones, Windows would sell itself, no?Problem is M$ is too greedy.
Think about it, all pirated version are now patched and M$ has 19.99$ * each pirated copy, for future development.
That would get them easily a 10 million copies of windows * 20.00 = 200 million easy...without doing anything but making the internet safer.Balmer sucks, that's why M$ is the way they are.....stop throwing chairs, and start thinking with your head!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960130</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be what microsoft wanted</title>
	<author>The Dancing Panda</author>
	<datestamp>1257185940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just call the support number and tell them. They'll give you the call up key and you're good to go. There is a solution for these things, and it takes all of 10 minutes. Stop pirating software for no reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just call the support number and tell them .
They 'll give you the call up key and you 're good to go .
There is a solution for these things , and it takes all of 10 minutes .
Stop pirating software for no reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just call the support number and tell them.
They'll give you the call up key and you're good to go.
There is a solution for these things, and it takes all of 10 minutes.
Stop pirating software for no reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961774</id>
	<title>Way off point</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1257250020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Vista, Microsoft have made it much easy to slip-stream apps &amp; customizations into the install process for OEM / system builders and such like.</p><p>It just so happens that works for hackers too; your Windows torrent comes pre-rooted quite often - it is a very popular download after all.</p><p>Also, WGA does not prevent your from downloading critical patches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Vista , Microsoft have made it much easy to slip-stream apps &amp; customizations into the install process for OEM / system builders and such like.It just so happens that works for hackers too ; your Windows torrent comes pre-rooted quite often - it is a very popular download after all.Also , WGA does not prevent your from downloading critical patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Vista, Microsoft have made it much easy to slip-stream apps &amp; customizations into the install process for OEM / system builders and such like.It just so happens that works for hackers too; your Windows torrent comes pre-rooted quite often - it is a very popular download after all.Also, WGA does not prevent your from downloading critical patches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29969488</id>
	<title>Microsoft Upgrade Policy increase Malware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say that Microsoft finally admits that their upgrade/patch policy actually increases the number of malware infected computer?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say that Microsoft finally admits that their upgrade/patch policy actually increases the number of malware infected computer ?
... interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say that Microsoft finally admits that their upgrade/patch policy actually increases the number of malware infected computer?
... interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957588</id>
	<title>Re:safer users</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257169320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Wouldn't those pirating an OS be less likely to have infected computers<br>&gt; simply because they would be more likely to be more computer literate<br>&gt; than your average user?</p><p>No.  They don't install it themselves: they don't even know what an operating system is.  They just buy a pc from the shop that has the best prices, is conveniently located, and promises to include all the software they could need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Would n't those pirating an OS be less likely to have infected computers &gt; simply because they would be more likely to be more computer literate &gt; than your average user ? No .
They do n't install it themselves : they do n't even know what an operating system is .
They just buy a pc from the shop that has the best prices , is conveniently located , and promises to include all the software they could need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Wouldn't those pirating an OS be less likely to have infected computers&gt; simply because they would be more likely to be more computer literate&gt; than your average user?No.
They don't install it themselves: they don't even know what an operating system is.
They just buy a pc from the shop that has the best prices, is conveniently located, and promises to include all the software they could need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959626</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>triceice</author>
	<datestamp>1257181680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And really who is actually affected by WGA crap? Only those people that are honest users but bought a used computer or bought one from someone shady.</p><p>Anyone that uses pirated software will just move on to the next crack or hack to keep running illegal software.</p><p>The truth is that because MS software is SO pirated it helps their sales because people get use to it.</p><p>So they should patch those machines to help people's confidence in the security of their products and stop pushing out bull crap like WGA and IE8 as a critical security update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And really who is actually affected by WGA crap ?
Only those people that are honest users but bought a used computer or bought one from someone shady.Anyone that uses pirated software will just move on to the next crack or hack to keep running illegal software.The truth is that because MS software is SO pirated it helps their sales because people get use to it.So they should patch those machines to help people 's confidence in the security of their products and stop pushing out bull crap like WGA and IE8 as a critical security update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And really who is actually affected by WGA crap?
Only those people that are honest users but bought a used computer or bought one from someone shady.Anyone that uses pirated software will just move on to the next crack or hack to keep running illegal software.The truth is that because MS software is SO pirated it helps their sales because people get use to it.So they should patch those machines to help people's confidence in the security of their products and stop pushing out bull crap like WGA and IE8 as a critical security update.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29962458</id>
	<title>There is a solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257257760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tired of malware, either from Microsoft or elsewhere?  Get Linux.  Pick a distro and don't look back, don't blink.</p><p>For some reason, I'm now associating Microsoft with the Dr. Who episode "Blink".  And if you haven't seen that episode, sad for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tired of malware , either from Microsoft or elsewhere ?
Get Linux .
Pick a distro and do n't look back , do n't blink.For some reason , I 'm now associating Microsoft with the Dr. Who episode " Blink " .
And if you have n't seen that episode , sad for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tired of malware, either from Microsoft or elsewhere?
Get Linux.
Pick a distro and don't look back, don't blink.For some reason, I'm now associating Microsoft with the Dr. Who episode "Blink".
And if you haven't seen that episode, sad for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957564</id>
	<title>should it be like giving clean needles to junkies?</title>
	<author>shoor</author>
	<datestamp>1257169200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, I'm not even a user of Microsoft stuff (see my sig), and I'm not posting because I think I know what Microsoft should do.  This is not a rhetorical question on my part, but just a plain question.  As I understand it, when a machine is infected it makes trouble for everybody (becomes part of an army of botnets or whatever).  So, helping pirates who, except for pirating Microsoft Software are pretty much minding their own business, to keep their machines virus free would help everybody wouldn't it?

They try to give junkies clean needles not to help them be junkies, but to try to prevent the spread of disease.  Have I got that right?  If I do, then, isn't it a similar situation with Microsoft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I 'm not even a user of Microsoft stuff ( see my sig ) , and I 'm not posting because I think I know what Microsoft should do .
This is not a rhetorical question on my part , but just a plain question .
As I understand it , when a machine is infected it makes trouble for everybody ( becomes part of an army of botnets or whatever ) .
So , helping pirates who , except for pirating Microsoft Software are pretty much minding their own business , to keep their machines virus free would help everybody would n't it ?
They try to give junkies clean needles not to help them be junkies , but to try to prevent the spread of disease .
Have I got that right ?
If I do , then , is n't it a similar situation with Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I'm not even a user of Microsoft stuff (see my sig), and I'm not posting because I think I know what Microsoft should do.
This is not a rhetorical question on my part, but just a plain question.
As I understand it, when a machine is infected it makes trouble for everybody (becomes part of an army of botnets or whatever).
So, helping pirates who, except for pirating Microsoft Software are pretty much minding their own business, to keep their machines virus free would help everybody wouldn't it?
They try to give junkies clean needles not to help them be junkies, but to try to prevent the spread of disease.
Have I got that right?
If I do, then, isn't it a similar situation with Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956978</id>
	<title>Gee. I wonder why . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257166560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . people would be "leery" of installing "security patches," MS having pushed down things like WGA as a "critical updates." Of fscking <b>course</b> the people running dodgy copies of Windows are going to assume that each new wave of patches might come with a copy protection trojan, in light of the fact they've done it before. So in fact, Microsoft has caused the problem they're bellowing about in the name of attempting to inhibit piracy of Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
people would be " leery " of installing " security patches , " MS having pushed down things like WGA as a " critical updates .
" Of fscking course the people running dodgy copies of Windows are going to assume that each new wave of patches might come with a copy protection trojan , in light of the fact they 've done it before .
So in fact , Microsoft has caused the problem they 're bellowing about in the name of attempting to inhibit piracy of Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
people would be "leery" of installing "security patches," MS having pushed down things like WGA as a "critical updates.
" Of fscking course the people running dodgy copies of Windows are going to assume that each new wave of patches might come with a copy protection trojan, in light of the fact they've done it before.
So in fact, Microsoft has caused the problem they're bellowing about in the name of attempting to inhibit piracy of Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958502</id>
	<title>Micro$trategy</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1257173700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be all this time we thought Micro$oft was incapable of shipping a bug-free, secure operating system, it wasn't ineptitude, or planned obsolescence as a tool to make folks upgrade like Skinner's pigeons every time a new version came out, but a device for fighting piracy?
<p>.</p><p>
<i>Bill:  We make it so complex and insecure that we'll constantly have to patch, leaving anyone who doesn't have a legitimate copy in the cold!</i></p><p><i>
Steve:  Great idea, boss!)
</i></p><p>It would explain a lot which otherwise makes almost no sense.  ~Hal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be all this time we thought Micro $ oft was incapable of shipping a bug-free , secure operating system , it was n't ineptitude , or planned obsolescence as a tool to make folks upgrade like Skinner 's pigeons every time a new version came out , but a device for fighting piracy ?
. Bill : We make it so complex and insecure that we 'll constantly have to patch , leaving anyone who does n't have a legitimate copy in the cold !
Steve : Great idea , boss !
) It would explain a lot which otherwise makes almost no sense .
~ Hal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be all this time we thought Micro$oft was incapable of shipping a bug-free, secure operating system, it wasn't ineptitude, or planned obsolescence as a tool to make folks upgrade like Skinner's pigeons every time a new version came out, but a device for fighting piracy?
.
Bill:  We make it so complex and insecure that we'll constantly have to patch, leaving anyone who doesn't have a legitimate copy in the cold!
Steve:  Great idea, boss!
)
It would explain a lot which otherwise makes almost no sense.
~Hal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957054</id>
	<title>That's crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Average users who don't pirate software traditionally also don't have the knowledge required to keep their computers clean from such things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Average users who do n't pirate software traditionally also do n't have the knowledge required to keep their computers clean from such things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Average users who don't pirate software traditionally also don't have the knowledge required to keep their computers clean from such things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29967700</id>
	<title>Simple Enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257240660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are the numbers?</p><p>What was left out?</p><p>Who is gaining something from this?</p><p>Why is MS bringing this up?</p><p>When were the updates released that would have protected them?</p><p>How was the statistics information obtained?</p><p>I'm sure we can ask a lot more questions that will never get answered that would explain what is really going on.</p><p>Fuck you Steve Ball Licker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are the numbers ? What was left out ? Who is gaining something from this ? Why is MS bringing this up ? When were the updates released that would have protected them ? How was the statistics information obtained ? I 'm sure we can ask a lot more questions that will never get answered that would explain what is really going on.Fuck you Steve Ball Licker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are the numbers?What was left out?Who is gaining something from this?Why is MS bringing this up?When were the updates released that would have protected them?How was the statistics information obtained?I'm sure we can ask a lot more questions that will never get answered that would explain what is really going on.Fuck you Steve Ball Licker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960350</id>
	<title>Re:Broadband speed might be more of an issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$40 for a 512k connection? Over here in Europe I get a 20mbit down 4mbit up for 20 euros...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 40 for a 512k connection ?
Over here in Europe I get a 20mbit down 4mbit up for 20 euros.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$40 for a 512k connection?
Over here in Europe I get a 20mbit down 4mbit up for 20 euros...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961366</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not as much as OEM installes. Like Dell or Fujitsu Siemens, they come prebundles with gigabytes of malware</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not as much as OEM installes .
Like Dell or Fujitsu Siemens , they come prebundles with gigabytes of malware</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not as much as OEM installes.
Like Dell or Fujitsu Siemens, they come prebundles with gigabytes of malware</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29964902</id>
	<title>Or maybe they're leery of patches because...</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1257270180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It interrupts their work in a major way, frequently sucks up an hour of productive time (contrary to MS's lame human factor studies) and forces them to reboot to get anything done, followed by that *stupid* message about seeing what was updated (Golly Gosh, I'm so excited about the latest Windows update, I can hardly wait!).<br>.<br>Maybe, it's like having a regularly scheduled blue screen of death instead of a random one. Not much of an improvement.</p><p>Maybe *that's* why they're leery of patches. At least the viruses try and stay out of the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It interrupts their work in a major way , frequently sucks up an hour of productive time ( contrary to MS 's lame human factor studies ) and forces them to reboot to get anything done , followed by that * stupid * message about seeing what was updated ( Golly Gosh , I 'm so excited about the latest Windows update , I can hardly wait !
) ..Maybe , it 's like having a regularly scheduled blue screen of death instead of a random one .
Not much of an improvement.Maybe * that 's * why they 're leery of patches .
At least the viruses try and stay out of the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It interrupts their work in a major way, frequently sucks up an hour of productive time (contrary to MS's lame human factor studies) and forces them to reboot to get anything done, followed by that *stupid* message about seeing what was updated (Golly Gosh, I'm so excited about the latest Windows update, I can hardly wait!
)..Maybe, it's like having a regularly scheduled blue screen of death instead of a random one.
Not much of an improvement.Maybe *that's* why they're leery of patches.
At least the viruses try and stay out of the way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961852</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>jaq1an</author>
	<datestamp>1257250920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do people actually install those updates?

There is nothing like those updates to bring your system to a crawl. The only updates I install when using Windows are Service Packs and Antivirus updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do people actually install those updates ?
There is nothing like those updates to bring your system to a crawl .
The only updates I install when using Windows are Service Packs and Antivirus updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do people actually install those updates?
There is nothing like those updates to bring your system to a crawl.
The only updates I install when using Windows are Service Packs and Antivirus updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960340</id>
	<title>This just in from M$'s Corporate  No-$hit Dept.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>/sigh.

I learned the computer trade with C, VI, and Unix.  I make a living with Microsoft products.  Press releases revealing the obvious, like this, are typically followed by an add for Mcnasty, Sympathetec, or Crapware's next generation intrusion botnet prevention corporate packet inspectercating firewall, built on open slource *nixware atom processor spinnage.

I think it's time to join that cult I read about following in the foot steps of the unibomber<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>/sigh .
I learned the computer trade with C , VI , and Unix .
I make a living with Microsoft products .
Press releases revealing the obvious , like this , are typically followed by an add for Mcnasty , Sympathetec , or Crapware 's next generation intrusion botnet prevention corporate packet inspectercating firewall , built on open slource * nixware atom processor spinnage .
I think it 's time to join that cult I read about following in the foot steps of the unibomber .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/sigh.
I learned the computer trade with C, VI, and Unix.
I make a living with Microsoft products.
Press releases revealing the obvious, like this, are typically followed by an add for Mcnasty, Sympathetec, or Crapware's next generation intrusion botnet prevention corporate packet inspectercating firewall, built on open slource *nixware atom processor spinnage.
I think it's time to join that cult I read about following in the foot steps of the unibomber ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959904</id>
	<title>Re:Stands to reason.</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1257184020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy ships</p></div><p>It doesn't help that said navy ships are also running Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy shipsIt does n't help that said navy ships are also running Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy shipsIt doesn't help that said navy ships are also running Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963788</id>
	<title>You Can't Patch Users</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1257265680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Believing "user education" will lead to better security is like believing aggressive patching will create bug free software.  Education and aggressive patching are useful and do improve the quality of the system but mistakes happen for people and software.  You can have people read security documents forever and continually patch and machines will still get exploited because neither is perfected.</p><p>Beyond that, regular users don't have time to read security bulletins and twiddle with scanners.  Instead of blaming the user, how about we blame the software systems that help create this mess?  Why is it so difficult to configure and user and inspect the status of AV software?  Why should any OS have AV software in the first place??  These seem like problems with the software design not the user.  Or if anyone needs a hint on what the real problem is: It is very hard for a user to tell the difference between AV software and malware.  That should tell you something is weird about the system where if the user could tell the difference we wouldn't need the software in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Believing " user education " will lead to better security is like believing aggressive patching will create bug free software .
Education and aggressive patching are useful and do improve the quality of the system but mistakes happen for people and software .
You can have people read security documents forever and continually patch and machines will still get exploited because neither is perfected.Beyond that , regular users do n't have time to read security bulletins and twiddle with scanners .
Instead of blaming the user , how about we blame the software systems that help create this mess ?
Why is it so difficult to configure and user and inspect the status of AV software ?
Why should any OS have AV software in the first place ? ?
These seem like problems with the software design not the user .
Or if anyone needs a hint on what the real problem is : It is very hard for a user to tell the difference between AV software and malware .
That should tell you something is weird about the system where if the user could tell the difference we would n't need the software in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believing "user education" will lead to better security is like believing aggressive patching will create bug free software.
Education and aggressive patching are useful and do improve the quality of the system but mistakes happen for people and software.
You can have people read security documents forever and continually patch and machines will still get exploited because neither is perfected.Beyond that, regular users don't have time to read security bulletins and twiddle with scanners.
Instead of blaming the user, how about we blame the software systems that help create this mess?
Why is it so difficult to configure and user and inspect the status of AV software?
Why should any OS have AV software in the first place??
These seem like problems with the software design not the user.
Or if anyone needs a hint on what the real problem is: It is very hard for a user to tell the difference between AV software and malware.
That should tell you something is weird about the system where if the user could tell the difference we wouldn't need the software in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963488</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257264060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And really who is actually affected by WGA crap? Only those people that are honest users but bought a used computer or bought one from someone shady.</i></p><p>Actually, there have been many documented cases of legitimate copies of windows flagged by WGA. It's rare, but does happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And really who is actually affected by WGA crap ?
Only those people that are honest users but bought a used computer or bought one from someone shady.Actually , there have been many documented cases of legitimate copies of windows flagged by WGA .
It 's rare , but does happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And really who is actually affected by WGA crap?
Only those people that are honest users but bought a used computer or bought one from someone shady.Actually, there have been many documented cases of legitimate copies of windows flagged by WGA.
It's rare, but does happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961832</id>
	<title>People who pirate windows...</title>
	<author>laron</author>
	<datestamp>1257250680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my limited experience, casual pirates practice very little "software hygiene", i. e. they tend to install all kinds of dodgy programs, including pirated software from p2p networks. That might be an important infection vector.<br>Can someone make a fitting analogy to STDs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my limited experience , casual pirates practice very little " software hygiene " , i. e. they tend to install all kinds of dodgy programs , including pirated software from p2p networks .
That might be an important infection vector.Can someone make a fitting analogy to STDs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my limited experience, casual pirates practice very little "software hygiene", i. e. they tend to install all kinds of dodgy programs, including pirated software from p2p networks.
That might be an important infection vector.Can someone make a fitting analogy to STDs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29962990</id>
	<title>Word is...</title>
	<author>nellim</author>
	<datestamp>1257261300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That Microshit has done it again.  Boy remember all those fun little excuses for why Vista sucked bawls?  Why was it?  Rushed, in complete, need more time, and Ballmer is a raging asshole...YOU DON'T SAY!  Just another reason to switch to Linux and play with wine -&gt; you learn something and that pain in you asshole suddenly disappears.  Well, here's to stating the obvious.  CHEERS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That Microshit has done it again .
Boy remember all those fun little excuses for why Vista sucked bawls ?
Why was it ?
Rushed , in complete , need more time , and Ballmer is a raging asshole...YOU DO N'T SAY !
Just another reason to switch to Linux and play with wine - &gt; you learn something and that pain in you asshole suddenly disappears .
Well , here 's to stating the obvious .
CHEERS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Microshit has done it again.
Boy remember all those fun little excuses for why Vista sucked bawls?
Why was it?
Rushed, in complete, need more time, and Ballmer is a raging asshole...YOU DON'T SAY!
Just another reason to switch to Linux and play with wine -&gt; you learn something and that pain in you asshole suddenly disappears.
Well, here's to stating the obvious.
CHEERS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960902</id>
	<title>Nothing to do with the security model then...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257280560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get the facts Jeff. Malware is rife on Windows and has been since Win 98 because of the antiquated security model employed in Windows.<br>Shifting the blame instead of solving the problem seems to be the norm for Microsoft, so those that have to use Microsoft products just accept that their PC will never be entirely clean and malware free.</p><p>No mention that the Alexa spyware is installed on every brand new PC due to the fact that it's incorporated into Windows.<br>Malware is a problem caused by Microsoft. Not only is it a direct result of an inadequate default security level, it exists because they invented the problem by wanting to spy on users to sell the data and through proprietary web formats like activeX, Which never caught on outside of Windows due the vast array of security holes it opens.<br>How else would Microsoft partners be able to sell security software subscriptions to paranoid consumers for extortionate amounts of money? They wouldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the facts Jeff .
Malware is rife on Windows and has been since Win 98 because of the antiquated security model employed in Windows.Shifting the blame instead of solving the problem seems to be the norm for Microsoft , so those that have to use Microsoft products just accept that their PC will never be entirely clean and malware free.No mention that the Alexa spyware is installed on every brand new PC due to the fact that it 's incorporated into Windows.Malware is a problem caused by Microsoft .
Not only is it a direct result of an inadequate default security level , it exists because they invented the problem by wanting to spy on users to sell the data and through proprietary web formats like activeX , Which never caught on outside of Windows due the vast array of security holes it opens.How else would Microsoft partners be able to sell security software subscriptions to paranoid consumers for extortionate amounts of money ?
They would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the facts Jeff.
Malware is rife on Windows and has been since Win 98 because of the antiquated security model employed in Windows.Shifting the blame instead of solving the problem seems to be the norm for Microsoft, so those that have to use Microsoft products just accept that their PC will never be entirely clean and malware free.No mention that the Alexa spyware is installed on every brand new PC due to the fact that it's incorporated into Windows.Malware is a problem caused by Microsoft.
Not only is it a direct result of an inadequate default security level, it exists because they invented the problem by wanting to spy on users to sell the data and through proprietary web formats like activeX, Which never caught on outside of Windows due the vast array of security holes it opens.How else would Microsoft partners be able to sell security software subscriptions to paranoid consumers for extortionate amounts of money?
They wouldn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959110</id>
	<title>Uh, some pirated copies will pass WGA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's really no excuse for you copyright violators to become bots as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's really no excuse for you copyright violators to become bots as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's really no excuse for you copyright violators to become bots as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959034</id>
	<title>Re:Stands to reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yar, ye forgot t' name scurvy. We be scurvy dogs! Not gettin' enough vitamin C:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yar , ye forgot t ' name scurvy .
We be scurvy dogs !
Not gettin ' enough vitamin C :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yar, ye forgot t' name scurvy.
We be scurvy dogs!
Not gettin' enough vitamin C:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29964070</id>
	<title>I can link malware rates</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257266760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>100\% of Malware I've seen is on machines where I've given the end user admin/root access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % of Malware I 've seen is on machines where I 've given the end user admin/root access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% of Malware I've seen is on machines where I've given the end user admin/root access.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959624</id>
	<title>Re:I partially agree....</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1257181680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but there's a big whole in that argument, which, I'm sure, MS doesn't like being mentioned. IMHO, one of the biggest holes in security is the clueless user. We all know 'em. "Oooh, pretty cursors, and they're free," "I'll just email my username &amp; password to someone so they can login to my account for *miscellaneous-reason*, and yes, that's over unencrypted email" "I just store all my info in My Documents," (including textfiles with usernames/passwords, personal info including credit card/bank account info, etc), "Bah! I can't view this crazy website properly! I'll just turn off the firewall/anti-malware program," "Oh, nifty IE toolbar! Sure I've never heard of this website/company/group/whatever providing it, but it looks pretty cool so I'll install it," "Internet cache? What's that? Defrag? Virus Scan? Fooey!" "Huh. I don't know who this person that emailed me is, or why they're emailing me about (insert tragic/horrific/frightening/miraculous/ridiculous or whatever urban legend/trope/myth/etc here), but I think I'll pass this email on like it says to. After all, if I don't send to at least 10 people in the next 5 minutes, then (insert promise of disaster/catastrophe or great happiness/wealth here, conditional on them forwarding spam)" "I made my password, 'Password'! Isn't it clever? <a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/everyone" title="encycloped...matica.com" rel="nofollow">No one</a> [encycloped...matica.com] will think it'll be that!" And so on, and so forth. Or how about the cluess admin that leaves a username or password of "admin" on a server or other network profile? "1-2-3-4-5? That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage."
<br> <br>
If they're drawing conclusions like this already, I can't help but wonder if they plan on hiding behind this when they roll out some new, more restrictive anti-piracy scheme. I'm not advocating piracy by any means, but MS seems to spend more time and money conniving how to get everybody to fork over a hefty chunk of cash for the "latest and greatest" version of their OS or software, rather than trying to fix bugs still in the last version. That, and trying to brainwash people into believing they're the only legitimate option. I hope they realize, if they think the Win7 release buys them enough good will to start monkeying around, that it only goes so far, which isn't far at all after infecting the World with Vista.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but there 's a big whole in that argument , which , I 'm sure , MS does n't like being mentioned .
IMHO , one of the biggest holes in security is the clueless user .
We all know 'em .
" Oooh , pretty cursors , and they 're free , " " I 'll just email my username &amp; password to someone so they can login to my account for * miscellaneous-reason * , and yes , that 's over unencrypted email " " I just store all my info in My Documents , " ( including textfiles with usernames/passwords , personal info including credit card/bank account info , etc ) , " Bah !
I ca n't view this crazy website properly !
I 'll just turn off the firewall/anti-malware program , " " Oh , nifty IE toolbar !
Sure I 've never heard of this website/company/group/whatever providing it , but it looks pretty cool so I 'll install it , " " Internet cache ?
What 's that ?
Defrag ? Virus Scan ?
Fooey ! " " Huh .
I do n't know who this person that emailed me is , or why they 're emailing me about ( insert tragic/horrific/frightening/miraculous/ridiculous or whatever urban legend/trope/myth/etc here ) , but I think I 'll pass this email on like it says to .
After all , if I do n't send to at least 10 people in the next 5 minutes , then ( insert promise of disaster/catastrophe or great happiness/wealth here , conditional on them forwarding spam ) " " I made my password , 'Password ' !
Is n't it clever ?
No one [ encycloped...matica.com ] will think it 'll be that !
" And so on , and so forth .
Or how about the cluess admin that leaves a username or password of " admin " on a server or other network profile ?
" 1-2-3-4-5 ? That 's amazing !
I 've got the same combination on my luggage .
" If they 're drawing conclusions like this already , I ca n't help but wonder if they plan on hiding behind this when they roll out some new , more restrictive anti-piracy scheme .
I 'm not advocating piracy by any means , but MS seems to spend more time and money conniving how to get everybody to fork over a hefty chunk of cash for the " latest and greatest " version of their OS or software , rather than trying to fix bugs still in the last version .
That , and trying to brainwash people into believing they 're the only legitimate option .
I hope they realize , if they think the Win7 release buys them enough good will to start monkeying around , that it only goes so far , which is n't far at all after infecting the World with Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but there's a big whole in that argument, which, I'm sure, MS doesn't like being mentioned.
IMHO, one of the biggest holes in security is the clueless user.
We all know 'em.
"Oooh, pretty cursors, and they're free," "I'll just email my username &amp; password to someone so they can login to my account for *miscellaneous-reason*, and yes, that's over unencrypted email" "I just store all my info in My Documents," (including textfiles with usernames/passwords, personal info including credit card/bank account info, etc), "Bah!
I can't view this crazy website properly!
I'll just turn off the firewall/anti-malware program," "Oh, nifty IE toolbar!
Sure I've never heard of this website/company/group/whatever providing it, but it looks pretty cool so I'll install it," "Internet cache?
What's that?
Defrag? Virus Scan?
Fooey!" "Huh.
I don't know who this person that emailed me is, or why they're emailing me about (insert tragic/horrific/frightening/miraculous/ridiculous or whatever urban legend/trope/myth/etc here), but I think I'll pass this email on like it says to.
After all, if I don't send to at least 10 people in the next 5 minutes, then (insert promise of disaster/catastrophe or great happiness/wealth here, conditional on them forwarding spam)" "I made my password, 'Password'!
Isn't it clever?
No one [encycloped...matica.com] will think it'll be that!
" And so on, and so forth.
Or how about the cluess admin that leaves a username or password of "admin" on a server or other network profile?
"1-2-3-4-5? That's amazing!
I've got the same combination on my luggage.
"
 
If they're drawing conclusions like this already, I can't help but wonder if they plan on hiding behind this when they roll out some new, more restrictive anti-piracy scheme.
I'm not advocating piracy by any means, but MS seems to spend more time and money conniving how to get everybody to fork over a hefty chunk of cash for the "latest and greatest" version of their OS or software, rather than trying to fix bugs still in the last version.
That, and trying to brainwash people into believing they're the only legitimate option.
I hope they realize, if they think the Win7 release buys them enough good will to start monkeying around, that it only goes so far, which isn't far at all after infecting the World with Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961388</id>
	<title>Re:Stands to reason.</title>
	<author>cp.tar</author>
	<datestamp>1257244740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew.</p></div><p>Having worked with Regedit, I now actually prefer the cutlass and the corkscrew.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew.Having worked with Regedit , I now actually prefer the cutlass and the corkscrew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew.Having worked with Regedit, I now actually prefer the cutlass and the corkscrew.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959204</id>
	<title>Patches tend to fuck up more than they fix</title>
	<author>Merithiel</author>
	<datestamp>1257177720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true in my experience. There hasn't been a machine which I've had which at some point I stopped doing updates on because some sequential update killed the machine irreversibly. Rarely, one can roll back or uninstall some update or go back to a restore point, but most of the time the only thing to do is to back up data and do a sys repair/reinstall/ghost.</p><p>For example, I got me one of them awesome Gateway P7805u notebooks a while ago and it came with a Vista SP1 license. I installed some stuff and then remembered that I can do updates. So I decided to go to SP2. Long story short, it fucked up some essential drivers and no amount of rolling back would help. Restoring from image was simple, but imagine having to do so with a vast array of installed apps and whatnot just because an update killed it all.</p><p>Hence, this is why I can't see a reason for actually buying licenses. I mean, the IEEE gives me oodles of them to use, so everything's all legal and nice...but if they didn't, I'd have no problem installing a Pro build 2600...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true in my experience .
There has n't been a machine which I 've had which at some point I stopped doing updates on because some sequential update killed the machine irreversibly .
Rarely , one can roll back or uninstall some update or go back to a restore point , but most of the time the only thing to do is to back up data and do a sys repair/reinstall/ghost.For example , I got me one of them awesome Gateway P7805u notebooks a while ago and it came with a Vista SP1 license .
I installed some stuff and then remembered that I can do updates .
So I decided to go to SP2 .
Long story short , it fucked up some essential drivers and no amount of rolling back would help .
Restoring from image was simple , but imagine having to do so with a vast array of installed apps and whatnot just because an update killed it all.Hence , this is why I ca n't see a reason for actually buying licenses .
I mean , the IEEE gives me oodles of them to use , so everything 's all legal and nice...but if they did n't , I 'd have no problem installing a Pro build 2600.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true in my experience.
There hasn't been a machine which I've had which at some point I stopped doing updates on because some sequential update killed the machine irreversibly.
Rarely, one can roll back or uninstall some update or go back to a restore point, but most of the time the only thing to do is to back up data and do a sys repair/reinstall/ghost.For example, I got me one of them awesome Gateway P7805u notebooks a while ago and it came with a Vista SP1 license.
I installed some stuff and then remembered that I can do updates.
So I decided to go to SP2.
Long story short, it fucked up some essential drivers and no amount of rolling back would help.
Restoring from image was simple, but imagine having to do so with a vast array of installed apps and whatnot just because an update killed it all.Hence, this is why I can't see a reason for actually buying licenses.
I mean, the IEEE gives me oodles of them to use, so everything's all legal and nice...but if they didn't, I'd have no problem installing a Pro build 2600...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957052</id>
	<title>Re:Just suppose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257166980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage..</i></p><p>I think it is possible.  According to <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892130" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892130</a> [microsoft.com]:</p><p><i> <b>What if I decide not to use Windows Genuine Advantage to validate my copy of Windows?</b></i></p><p><i>If you have a genuine copy of Windows but decide not to complete the validation process, you can still obtain critical software updates by using the Automatic Updates feature.</i></p><p>I'm not sure if this is true because I stopped using pirated copies of XP long before WGA came out, but it looks as though you can continue to receive updates via Automatic Updates even if you decline to use WGA. I think the more likely scenario is that many people disable automatic updates because they are either oblivious to updating software, don't care about updates, or are afraid their software is going to become disabled if it tries to phone home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage..I think it is possible .
According to http : //support.microsoft.com/kb/892130 [ microsoft.com ] : What if I decide not to use Windows Genuine Advantage to validate my copy of Windows ? If you have a genuine copy of Windows but decide not to complete the validation process , you can still obtain critical software updates by using the Automatic Updates feature.I 'm not sure if this is true because I stopped using pirated copies of XP long before WGA came out , but it looks as though you can continue to receive updates via Automatic Updates even if you decline to use WGA .
I think the more likely scenario is that many people disable automatic updates because they are either oblivious to updating software , do n't care about updates , or are afraid their software is going to become disabled if it tries to phone home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage..I think it is possible.
According to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892130 [microsoft.com]: What if I decide not to use Windows Genuine Advantage to validate my copy of Windows?If you have a genuine copy of Windows but decide not to complete the validation process, you can still obtain critical software updates by using the Automatic Updates feature.I'm not sure if this is true because I stopped using pirated copies of XP long before WGA came out, but it looks as though you can continue to receive updates via Automatic Updates even if you decline to use WGA.
I think the more likely scenario is that many people disable automatic updates because they are either oblivious to updating software, don't care about updates, or are afraid their software is going to become disabled if it tries to phone home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961364</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, as you note, installing pirated software, including Windows, is a risk in itself as much pirated software has been prepackaged with malware.</p></div></blockquote><p>True, but funny enough pirated software contains much less malware than the original packages, which is one of the its many advantages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , as you note , installing pirated software , including Windows , is a risk in itself as much pirated software has been prepackaged with malware.True , but funny enough pirated software contains much less malware than the original packages , which is one of the its many advantages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, as you note, installing pirated software, including Windows, is a risk in itself as much pirated software has been prepackaged with malware.True, but funny enough pirated software contains much less malware than the original packages, which is one of the its many advantages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963350</id>
	<title>Re:Always on Internet connections?..</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1257263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely is that they arent telling you everything that they do online, such as visiting granny midget porn sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely is that they arent telling you everything that they do online , such as visiting granny midget porn sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely is that they arent telling you everything that they do online, such as visiting granny midget porn sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29967250</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be what microsoft wanted</title>
	<author>TheJabberwocky</author>
	<datestamp>1257281700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apparently if you activate Windows on 4 different motherboards with 3 different CPUs, 4 different types of memory, 3 different GPUs, 6 different HDD setups, from 3 different IPs/ISPs, they find it suspicious and refuse to give you a new key.</p><p>... and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs.</p><p>Microsoft found it suspicious - too suspicious - and yet I'm in the right, because my XP key was only in use on a single machine. </p></div><p>Ummm.... If you've removed every single origional component and replaced them with new components how is that the same computer?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently if you activate Windows on 4 different motherboards with 3 different CPUs , 4 different types of memory , 3 different GPUs , 6 different HDD setups , from 3 different IPs/ISPs , they find it suspicious and refuse to give you a new key.... and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs.Microsoft found it suspicious - too suspicious - and yet I 'm in the right , because my XP key was only in use on a single machine .
Ummm.... If you 've removed every single origional component and replaced them with new components how is that the same computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently if you activate Windows on 4 different motherboards with 3 different CPUs, 4 different types of memory, 3 different GPUs, 6 different HDD setups, from 3 different IPs/ISPs, they find it suspicious and refuse to give you a new key.... and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs.Microsoft found it suspicious - too suspicious - and yet I'm in the right, because my XP key was only in use on a single machine.
Ummm.... If you've removed every single origional component and replaced them with new components how is that the same computer?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957164</id>
	<title>MSRT</title>
	<author>ArbiterShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1257167520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait a minute. They can hardly rely on data from the MSRT, given Microsoft's own assertion that users running pirated Windows don't use Windows Update.
</p><p>
Of course the infection rate as reported by the MSRT will be low, if it never gets run on the pirated (and therefore infected) machines.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute .
They can hardly rely on data from the MSRT , given Microsoft 's own assertion that users running pirated Windows do n't use Windows Update .
Of course the infection rate as reported by the MSRT will be low , if it never gets run on the pirated ( and therefore infected ) machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute.
They can hardly rely on data from the MSRT, given Microsoft's own assertion that users running pirated Windows don't use Windows Update.
Of course the infection rate as reported by the MSRT will be low, if it never gets run on the pirated (and therefore infected) machines.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29968774</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1257245040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Security patches are not subject to the Genuine Advantage check.</p></div><p>If you turn on automatic updates, it will automatically install "Genuine Advantage" as well as security updates.  Once you have "Genuine Advantage" on a machine that it thinks isn't "Genuine" -- it starts doing intrusive stuff -- From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_Genuine\_Advantage#WGA\_Notifications" title="wikipedia.org"> Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
<i>Microsoft began distributing Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications as "critical update" KB905474 to Windows users. Users with pirated copies were exposed to alerts at startup, login, and during use of the Windows OS, stating that they do not have a genuine copy of Windows. Users with legitimate copies are not supposed to see the alerts (although some do anyway). </i> <br> <br>

This also affected quite a few people who bought machines where they thought they had a legitimate copy of Windows but the one installed either wasn't legit or just had a common manufacturer key.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security patches are not subject to the Genuine Advantage check.If you turn on automatic updates , it will automatically install " Genuine Advantage " as well as security updates .
Once you have " Genuine Advantage " on a machine that it thinks is n't " Genuine " -- it starts doing intrusive stuff -- From Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] Microsoft began distributing Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications as " critical update " KB905474 to Windows users .
Users with pirated copies were exposed to alerts at startup , login , and during use of the Windows OS , stating that they do not have a genuine copy of Windows .
Users with legitimate copies are not supposed to see the alerts ( although some do anyway ) .
This also affected quite a few people who bought machines where they thought they had a legitimate copy of Windows but the one installed either was n't legit or just had a common manufacturer key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security patches are not subject to the Genuine Advantage check.If you turn on automatic updates, it will automatically install "Genuine Advantage" as well as security updates.
Once you have "Genuine Advantage" on a machine that it thinks isn't "Genuine" -- it starts doing intrusive stuff -- From  Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
 
Microsoft began distributing Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications as "critical update" KB905474 to Windows users.
Users with pirated copies were exposed to alerts at startup, login, and during use of the Windows OS, stating that they do not have a genuine copy of Windows.
Users with legitimate copies are not supposed to see the alerts (although some do anyway).
This also affected quite a few people who bought machines where they thought they had a legitimate copy of Windows but the one installed either wasn't legit or just had a common manufacturer key.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961196</id>
	<title>So wouldn't the RESPONSIBLE thing for Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257241440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So wouldn't the RESPONSIBLE thing for Microsoft to do, be to allow everyone to run the updates ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So would n't the RESPONSIBLE thing for Microsoft to do , be to allow everyone to run the updates ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wouldn't the RESPONSIBLE thing for Microsoft to do, be to allow everyone to run the updates ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959276</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>pyrbrand</author>
	<datestamp>1257178320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Security patches are not subject to the Genuine Advantage check.  People running pirated software are just less likely to run windows update because they are scared that it will somehow invalidate their pirated install.  Also, as you note, installing pirated software, including Windows, is a risk in itself as much pirated software has been prepackaged with malware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security patches are not subject to the Genuine Advantage check .
People running pirated software are just less likely to run windows update because they are scared that it will somehow invalidate their pirated install .
Also , as you note , installing pirated software , including Windows , is a risk in itself as much pirated software has been prepackaged with malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security patches are not subject to the Genuine Advantage check.
People running pirated software are just less likely to run windows update because they are scared that it will somehow invalidate their pirated install.
Also, as you note, installing pirated software, including Windows, is a risk in itself as much pirated software has been prepackaged with malware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958096</id>
	<title>This is rubbish!</title>
	<author>Helldesk Hound</author>
	<datestamp>1257171600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft can demonstrate a causal link between known pirated copies of it's flawed insecure OS, then why can't MS prosecute those pirates?</p><p>If I can't prove that any particular infected copy was pirated then it's merely spouting rubbish to defend the poor security of it's software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft can demonstrate a causal link between known pirated copies of it 's flawed insecure OS , then why ca n't MS prosecute those pirates ? If I ca n't prove that any particular infected copy was pirated then it 's merely spouting rubbish to defend the poor security of it 's software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft can demonstrate a causal link between known pirated copies of it's flawed insecure OS, then why can't MS prosecute those pirates?If I can't prove that any particular infected copy was pirated then it's merely spouting rubbish to defend the poor security of it's software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29964688</id>
	<title>Flawed argument</title>
	<author>rpmayhem</author>
	<datestamp>1257269280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs. China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT -- of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2. France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Wait a minute.  We are using the MSRT stats to debunk the idea that piracy and not running Windows Updates results in more malware.  MRST is usually run as a part of Windows Update...so the people not running WU don't run the tool and aren't even a part of the stats.  Whether Microsoft is right or wrong, this argument is flawed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Microsoft 's own data does n't always support William 's contention that piracy , and the hesitancy to use Windows Update , leads to more infected PCs .
China , for example , boasted a malware infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT -- of just 6.7 per thousand , significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US 's rate of 8.2 .
France 's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average .
Wait a minute .
We are using the MSRT stats to debunk the idea that piracy and not running Windows Updates results in more malware .
MRST is usually run as a part of Windows Update...so the people not running WU do n't run the tool and are n't even a part of the stats .
Whether Microsoft is right or wrong , this argument is flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs.
China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT -- of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2.
France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average.
Wait a minute.
We are using the MSRT stats to debunk the idea that piracy and not running Windows Updates results in more malware.
MRST is usually run as a part of Windows Update...so the people not running WU don't run the tool and aren't even a part of the stats.
Whether Microsoft is right or wrong, this argument is flawed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29969270</id>
	<title>Re:should it be like giving clean needles to junki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I do, then, isn't it a similar situation with Microsoft?</i> </p><p>What does your junkies and needles analogy have to do with cars?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I do , then , is n't it a similar situation with Microsoft ?
What does your junkies and needles analogy have to do with cars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I do, then, isn't it a similar situation with Microsoft?
What does your junkies and needles analogy have to do with cars?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957098</id>
	<title>safer users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't those pirating an OS be less likely to have infected computers simply because they would be more likely to be more computer literate than your average user?  Granted, it is not hard to get and install pirated copies, but your average user who falls for Nigerian scams and self-installing anti-virus malware probably wouldnt be doing much downloading besides some music, if at all.  I would assume that someone downloading a pirated version of Windows probably does not use IE, and probably follows safe browsing guidelines as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't those pirating an OS be less likely to have infected computers simply because they would be more likely to be more computer literate than your average user ?
Granted , it is not hard to get and install pirated copies , but your average user who falls for Nigerian scams and self-installing anti-virus malware probably wouldnt be doing much downloading besides some music , if at all .
I would assume that someone downloading a pirated version of Windows probably does not use IE , and probably follows safe browsing guidelines as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't those pirating an OS be less likely to have infected computers simply because they would be more likely to be more computer literate than your average user?
Granted, it is not hard to get and install pirated copies, but your average user who falls for Nigerian scams and self-installing anti-virus malware probably wouldnt be doing much downloading besides some music, if at all.
I would assume that someone downloading a pirated version of Windows probably does not use IE, and probably follows safe browsing guidelines as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957060</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>immortalpob</author>
	<datestamp>1257167040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and someone mod this up. Also note that this is what people said when they started this charade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and someone mod this up .
Also note that this is what people said when they started this charade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and someone mod this up.
Also note that this is what people said when they started this charade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29966186</id>
	<title>All...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257276000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most users of any M$ OS are (and should be!) leery of updates, as there have been far too many times that updates have caused trouble for users of legally purchased copies of Windows.   And if M$ properly programmed their OSs in the first place, there would not be nearly as much need for security patches and updates!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most users of any M $ OS are ( and should be !
) leery of updates , as there have been far too many times that updates have caused trouble for users of legally purchased copies of Windows .
And if M $ properly programmed their OSs in the first place , there would not be nearly as much need for security patches and updates !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most users of any M$ OS are (and should be!
) leery of updates, as there have been far too many times that updates have caused trouble for users of legally purchased copies of Windows.
And if M$ properly programmed their OSs in the first place, there would not be nearly as much need for security patches and updates!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038</id>
	<title>Stands to reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257166860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're pirates. Of course they're going to run malicious software.</p><p>What the hell else would pirates do with a computer, donate to charity and solve world hunger? No, they're going to use it to look up <a href="http://www.saucywenches.com/" title="saucywenches.com">www.saucywenches.com</a> [saucywenches.com] or download illegal treasure maps, or perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy ships. They'd use a pirate version of Quicken to count their doubloons and inventory their treasure chest. They'd be looking up suspicious sites for syphilis treatments. They'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're pirates .
Of course they 're going to run malicious software.What the hell else would pirates do with a computer , donate to charity and solve world hunger ?
No , they 're going to use it to look up www.saucywenches.com [ saucywenches.com ] or download illegal treasure maps , or perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy ships .
They 'd use a pirate version of Quicken to count their doubloons and inventory their treasure chest .
They 'd be looking up suspicious sites for syphilis treatments .
They 'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're pirates.
Of course they're going to run malicious software.What the hell else would pirates do with a computer, donate to charity and solve world hunger?
No, they're going to use it to look up www.saucywenches.com [saucywenches.com] or download illegal treasure maps, or perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy ships.
They'd use a pirate version of Quicken to count their doubloons and inventory their treasure chest.
They'd be looking up suspicious sites for syphilis treatments.
They'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958950</id>
	<title>Re:Just suppose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like ponies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like ponies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like ponies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957214</id>
	<title>Seems to be what microsoft wanted</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1257167760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches.</p></div><p>When you purposely push out "security patches" that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated, then yes, they are leery of using them, and rightly so (Assuming their goal is to run Windows without paying, and not buying Windows or using another OS)</p><p>This is the exact situation Microsoft has stated they wanted to happen.</p><p>And before anyone starts, I am not suggesting Microsoft change their rules on supporting pirated copies of Windows.<br>It's theirs to choose how to support how they want.<br>Just that this is the only conclusion one could expect from their current choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches.When you purposely push out " security patches " that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated , then yes , they are leery of using them , and rightly so ( Assuming their goal is to run Windows without paying , and not buying Windows or using another OS ) This is the exact situation Microsoft has stated they wanted to happen.And before anyone starts , I am not suggesting Microsoft change their rules on supporting pirated copies of Windows.It 's theirs to choose how to support how they want.Just that this is the only conclusion one could expect from their current choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches.When you purposely push out "security patches" that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated, then yes, they are leery of using them, and rightly so (Assuming their goal is to run Windows without paying, and not buying Windows or using another OS)This is the exact situation Microsoft has stated they wanted to happen.And before anyone starts, I am not suggesting Microsoft change their rules on supporting pirated copies of Windows.It's theirs to choose how to support how they want.Just that this is the only conclusion one could expect from their current choice.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957172</id>
	<title>Re:Just suppose...</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1257167580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Suppose it was possible to apply security patches <i>without</i> installing Windows Genuine Advantage (malware by anyone's definition except Microsoft's).  Would that make a difference?</p></div><p>Quite likely, but Microsoft is definitely within their rights to insist that people pay for their software. You and I may find it to be unwieldy, intrusive and obnoxious, but that's our problem, not theirs.</p><p>If people don't want to deal with the mess and hassle of keeping their Windows machines clean and up to date, they have alternatives. They can pony up for a Mac or they can install Linux. Heck, if they're absolutely committed to using Windows without paying, they can run it in a snapshotted VM on Linux.</p><p>Just last week I wrote <a href="http://scriptorum.imagicity.com/2009/11/03/time-for-a-change" title="imagicity.com">a newspaper column</a> [imagicity.com] advocating Ubuntu Karmic over Windows 7, so I'm no fan of Windows whatsoever. But as someone who writes a fair amount of software, I fully respect Microsoft's right to license it - and enforce that license - as they see fit.</p><p>The fact that they're doing so in such a way as to drive the world away from them is just gravy, as far as I'm concerned. 8^)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage ( malware by anyone 's definition except Microsoft 's ) .
Would that make a difference ? Quite likely , but Microsoft is definitely within their rights to insist that people pay for their software .
You and I may find it to be unwieldy , intrusive and obnoxious , but that 's our problem , not theirs.If people do n't want to deal with the mess and hassle of keeping their Windows machines clean and up to date , they have alternatives .
They can pony up for a Mac or they can install Linux .
Heck , if they 're absolutely committed to using Windows without paying , they can run it in a snapshotted VM on Linux.Just last week I wrote a newspaper column [ imagicity.com ] advocating Ubuntu Karmic over Windows 7 , so I 'm no fan of Windows whatsoever .
But as someone who writes a fair amount of software , I fully respect Microsoft 's right to license it - and enforce that license - as they see fit.The fact that they 're doing so in such a way as to drive the world away from them is just gravy , as far as I 'm concerned .
8 ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage (malware by anyone's definition except Microsoft's).
Would that make a difference?Quite likely, but Microsoft is definitely within their rights to insist that people pay for their software.
You and I may find it to be unwieldy, intrusive and obnoxious, but that's our problem, not theirs.If people don't want to deal with the mess and hassle of keeping their Windows machines clean and up to date, they have alternatives.
They can pony up for a Mac or they can install Linux.
Heck, if they're absolutely committed to using Windows without paying, they can run it in a snapshotted VM on Linux.Just last week I wrote a newspaper column [imagicity.com] advocating Ubuntu Karmic over Windows 7, so I'm no fan of Windows whatsoever.
But as someone who writes a fair amount of software, I fully respect Microsoft's right to license it - and enforce that license - as they see fit.The fact that they're doing so in such a way as to drive the world away from them is just gravy, as far as I'm concerned.
8^)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961326</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>dasmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257243720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>A large percentage of malware comes from people installing pirated software.  People who pirate Windows are... wait for it... more likely to pirate other software, too.  Therefore, you'd expect a strong correlation between malware rate and pirated copies of Windows even if Microsoft did everything they could to keep pirated copies of Windows patched.  Their "Genuine Advantage" crap is merely compounding the problem.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>
Users with low quotas in Australia are less likely to download windows patches, browser patches and are probably a significant number of the internet users here. In Indonesia the internet is so bad that you can barely download web pages, let alone updates. It doesn't matter if they're allowing people to patch pirate copies, some people just don't like their computer "wasting" bandwidth</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A large percentage of malware comes from people installing pirated software .
People who pirate Windows are... wait for it... more likely to pirate other software , too .
Therefore , you 'd expect a strong correlation between malware rate and pirated copies of Windows even if Microsoft did everything they could to keep pirated copies of Windows patched .
Their " Genuine Advantage " crap is merely compounding the problem .
Users with low quotas in Australia are less likely to download windows patches , browser patches and are probably a significant number of the internet users here .
In Indonesia the internet is so bad that you can barely download web pages , let alone updates .
It does n't matter if they 're allowing people to patch pirate copies , some people just do n't like their computer " wasting " bandwidth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A large percentage of malware comes from people installing pirated software.
People who pirate Windows are... wait for it... more likely to pirate other software, too.
Therefore, you'd expect a strong correlation between malware rate and pirated copies of Windows even if Microsoft did everything they could to keep pirated copies of Windows patched.
Their "Genuine Advantage" crap is merely compounding the problem.
Users with low quotas in Australia are less likely to download windows patches, browser patches and are probably a significant number of the internet users here.
In Indonesia the internet is so bad that you can barely download web pages, let alone updates.
It doesn't matter if they're allowing people to patch pirate copies, some people just don't like their computer "wasting" bandwidth
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957610</id>
	<title>Could the China anomaly have anything to do with..</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1257169380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that there's a "Great (Fire)Wall" separating the Chinese from the rest of the internet? Chinese culture being less individualistic may simply not produce as much malware, and since most citizens are restricted to their own countrymen, there's a bias. That such a sampling bias exists should disqualify it from being included among the other countries, or at least warrant further research before lumping it in there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that there 's a " Great ( Fire ) Wall " separating the Chinese from the rest of the internet ?
Chinese culture being less individualistic may simply not produce as much malware , and since most citizens are restricted to their own countrymen , there 's a bias .
That such a sampling bias exists should disqualify it from being included among the other countries , or at least warrant further research before lumping it in there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that there's a "Great (Fire)Wall" separating the Chinese from the rest of the internet?
Chinese culture being less individualistic may simply not produce as much malware, and since most citizens are restricted to their own countrymen, there's a bias.
That such a sampling bias exists should disqualify it from being included among the other countries, or at least warrant further research before lumping it in there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956950</id>
	<title>Easily explained</title>
	<author>hudsucker</author>
	<datestamp>1257166440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, China is behind an all encompassing firewall.
<br> <br>
And the French refuse to install malware written in English.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , China is behind an all encompassing firewall .
And the French refuse to install malware written in English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, China is behind an all encompassing firewall.
And the French refuse to install malware written in English.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958558</id>
	<title>Re:should it be like giving clean needles to junki</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1257173940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm just tired and sleepy - but your post makes me think that if Gate's daddy had used a dirty needle and a condom, we wouldn't be so worried about getting Bill's viruses today.  Hmmmm.  I'll sleep on that idea......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm just tired and sleepy - but your post makes me think that if Gate 's daddy had used a dirty needle and a condom , we would n't be so worried about getting Bill 's viruses today .
Hmmmm. I 'll sleep on that idea..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm just tired and sleepy - but your post makes me think that if Gate's daddy had used a dirty needle and a condom, we wouldn't be so worried about getting Bill's viruses today.
Hmmmm.  I'll sleep on that idea......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29962624</id>
	<title>I love the spin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257258960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, once again, it is the user's fault that there are so many infected machines out there. But now it is because people are stealing Windows, not only because they stupidly open every e-mail attachment sent to them.</p><p>But never, <i>never</i>, NEVER Microsoft's fault for making a product with security loopholes out the wazoo, inadequate security testing and poor security programming practices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , once again , it is the user 's fault that there are so many infected machines out there .
But now it is because people are stealing Windows , not only because they stupidly open every e-mail attachment sent to them.But never , never , NEVER Microsoft 's fault for making a product with security loopholes out the wazoo , inadequate security testing and poor security programming practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, once again, it is the user's fault that there are so many infected machines out there.
But now it is because people are stealing Windows, not only because they stupidly open every e-mail attachment sent to them.But never, never, NEVER Microsoft's fault for making a product with security loopholes out the wazoo, inadequate security testing and poor security programming practices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959298</id>
	<title>How to combat Pirated Windows... make it free!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257178560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>XP is now 2 gens behind flagship right?  Make it free to the world.  It will really hurt Linux in the free domain and transition a lot of pirates to something with legit updates.  The world would open up to Microsoft.  Same concept as medicinal marijuana.  It's better to get your supply from a safe place because who knows what the corner dealer is putting into it.

I used a pirated version of XP for about 2 years.  I hated not getting updates and always feeling like I was being used in a botnet.  It was like a weight was lifted off my shoulders, it was the best purchase I ever made.  Now, every system in my house is legit and I feel sorry for people who have pirated copies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>XP is now 2 gens behind flagship right ?
Make it free to the world .
It will really hurt Linux in the free domain and transition a lot of pirates to something with legit updates .
The world would open up to Microsoft .
Same concept as medicinal marijuana .
It 's better to get your supply from a safe place because who knows what the corner dealer is putting into it .
I used a pirated version of XP for about 2 years .
I hated not getting updates and always feeling like I was being used in a botnet .
It was like a weight was lifted off my shoulders , it was the best purchase I ever made .
Now , every system in my house is legit and I feel sorry for people who have pirated copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP is now 2 gens behind flagship right?
Make it free to the world.
It will really hurt Linux in the free domain and transition a lot of pirates to something with legit updates.
The world would open up to Microsoft.
Same concept as medicinal marijuana.
It's better to get your supply from a safe place because who knows what the corner dealer is putting into it.
I used a pirated version of XP for about 2 years.
I hated not getting updates and always feeling like I was being used in a botnet.
It was like a weight was lifted off my shoulders, it was the best purchase I ever made.
Now, every system in my house is legit and I feel sorry for people who have pirated copies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959314</id>
	<title>Actually this is a logical fallacy</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1257178680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>having the latest patches and updates do not protect you from all viruses just specific ones. Microsoft cannot code Windows updates to prevent all virus and malware infections as Windows is "defective by design" with security holes and bugs that allow malware and viruses to be installed even if the system has the latest updates and a few AV programs as well as a firewall.</p><p>Pirated Windows can still apply the Windows updates and pirated Windows have a way around the Microsoft WGA checks as they redirect WGA checks to files within the operating system that have been patched to always return a genuine check, instead of going to Microsoft's servers. The only people that get WGA 'You may be a victim of counterfeiting" are legit Windows users who suffered from a "false positive" because their AV or Firewall detected WGA as Spyware and prevented it from connecting to Microsoft's servers.</p><p>Actually third world nations get virus infections because the economy is bad and many of their citizens turn to writing viruses to make money by infecting other systems and stealing their identity and bank accounts, but they just don't infect systems within their nation, but <b>all over the world</b> it is just that people in a third world nation cannot afford the tech support services to remove the viruses and malware or aren't educated enough to do it themselves and suffer with malware and virus infections. Not to say that people in rich economies like the EU and USA don't write their own share of viruses and malware, just that Geek Squad and other companies charge $300 (or more or less) to do a virus/malware cleanup using a MRI Boot CD with several virus scanners on it and pay some high school or college student or drop-out minimum wage to do the virus scan.</p><p>I myself clean up the Windows systems of friends and relatives, and their Windows is genuine and patched and updated to the latest versions and they paid for AV software and firewalls, but still get infected. Until Windows adopts a Unix like security system and uses a design that makes it hard for viruses and malware to exist or infect system files as Unix, Linux, Mac OSX, *BSD Unix etc have, we are going to see "Ghostbuster" type numbers of virus and malware infections all around the world. Now that is a big Twinkie!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>having the latest patches and updates do not protect you from all viruses just specific ones .
Microsoft can not code Windows updates to prevent all virus and malware infections as Windows is " defective by design " with security holes and bugs that allow malware and viruses to be installed even if the system has the latest updates and a few AV programs as well as a firewall.Pirated Windows can still apply the Windows updates and pirated Windows have a way around the Microsoft WGA checks as they redirect WGA checks to files within the operating system that have been patched to always return a genuine check , instead of going to Microsoft 's servers .
The only people that get WGA 'You may be a victim of counterfeiting " are legit Windows users who suffered from a " false positive " because their AV or Firewall detected WGA as Spyware and prevented it from connecting to Microsoft 's servers.Actually third world nations get virus infections because the economy is bad and many of their citizens turn to writing viruses to make money by infecting other systems and stealing their identity and bank accounts , but they just do n't infect systems within their nation , but all over the world it is just that people in a third world nation can not afford the tech support services to remove the viruses and malware or are n't educated enough to do it themselves and suffer with malware and virus infections .
Not to say that people in rich economies like the EU and USA do n't write their own share of viruses and malware , just that Geek Squad and other companies charge $ 300 ( or more or less ) to do a virus/malware cleanup using a MRI Boot CD with several virus scanners on it and pay some high school or college student or drop-out minimum wage to do the virus scan.I myself clean up the Windows systems of friends and relatives , and their Windows is genuine and patched and updated to the latest versions and they paid for AV software and firewalls , but still get infected .
Until Windows adopts a Unix like security system and uses a design that makes it hard for viruses and malware to exist or infect system files as Unix , Linux , Mac OSX , * BSD Unix etc have , we are going to see " Ghostbuster " type numbers of virus and malware infections all around the world .
Now that is a big Twinkie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>having the latest patches and updates do not protect you from all viruses just specific ones.
Microsoft cannot code Windows updates to prevent all virus and malware infections as Windows is "defective by design" with security holes and bugs that allow malware and viruses to be installed even if the system has the latest updates and a few AV programs as well as a firewall.Pirated Windows can still apply the Windows updates and pirated Windows have a way around the Microsoft WGA checks as they redirect WGA checks to files within the operating system that have been patched to always return a genuine check, instead of going to Microsoft's servers.
The only people that get WGA 'You may be a victim of counterfeiting" are legit Windows users who suffered from a "false positive" because their AV or Firewall detected WGA as Spyware and prevented it from connecting to Microsoft's servers.Actually third world nations get virus infections because the economy is bad and many of their citizens turn to writing viruses to make money by infecting other systems and stealing their identity and bank accounts, but they just don't infect systems within their nation, but all over the world it is just that people in a third world nation cannot afford the tech support services to remove the viruses and malware or aren't educated enough to do it themselves and suffer with malware and virus infections.
Not to say that people in rich economies like the EU and USA don't write their own share of viruses and malware, just that Geek Squad and other companies charge $300 (or more or less) to do a virus/malware cleanup using a MRI Boot CD with several virus scanners on it and pay some high school or college student or drop-out minimum wage to do the virus scan.I myself clean up the Windows systems of friends and relatives, and their Windows is genuine and patched and updated to the latest versions and they paid for AV software and firewalls, but still get infected.
Until Windows adopts a Unix like security system and uses a design that makes it hard for viruses and malware to exist or infect system files as Unix, Linux, Mac OSX, *BSD Unix etc have, we are going to see "Ghostbuster" type numbers of virus and malware infections all around the world.
Now that is a big Twinkie!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29966330</id>
	<title>Analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257276660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody also tried to establish a relationship between homosexuality and AIDS. There are two differences, though. It was not Microsoft. And actually MOST windows copies are pirated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody also tried to establish a relationship between homosexuality and AIDS .
There are two differences , though .
It was not Microsoft .
And actually MOST windows copies are pirated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody also tried to establish a relationship between homosexuality and AIDS.
There are two differences, though.
It was not Microsoft.
And actually MOST windows copies are pirated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959328</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257178740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So...you expect MS to pony up bandwidth to support users that didn't pay for their operating systems?</p><p>IMHO, MS has no obligation to support pirates.</p><p>Yes they should get some flak for writing an insecure OS.  But it's the actual pirates themselves that, knowing full well MS isn't going to do jack shit to support them, decide to install an unpatchable OS in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So...you expect MS to pony up bandwidth to support users that did n't pay for their operating systems ? IMHO , MS has no obligation to support pirates.Yes they should get some flak for writing an insecure OS .
But it 's the actual pirates themselves that , knowing full well MS is n't going to do jack shit to support them , decide to install an unpatchable OS in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...you expect MS to pony up bandwidth to support users that didn't pay for their operating systems?IMHO, MS has no obligation to support pirates.Yes they should get some flak for writing an insecure OS.
But it's the actual pirates themselves that, knowing full well MS isn't going to do jack shit to support them, decide to install an unpatchable OS in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961474</id>
	<title>It makes sense!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never update my pirate Windows as it slows down my XBox 360 torrents!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never update my pirate Windows as it slows down my XBox 360 torrents ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never update my pirate Windows as it slows down my XBox 360 torrents!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959018</id>
	<title>Re:should it be like giving clean needles to junki</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1257176400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are absolutely correct if the goal is the public good.</p><p>Corporations, on the other hand, are not about the public good.</p><p>t would be nice if Microsoft cared, but Microsoft is a corporation. A publicly traded corporation, no less; publicly traded corporations are required, by law, to be self-serving and to maximize profit over other considerations. If they don't, they can be sued by shareholders for not doing it.</p><p>So, nice as it would be, unless you can come up with a way to convince Microsoft to convince Microsoft shareholders that the goodwill would turn into profits that exceed the profit available with the current, selfish strategy, I think it's not so likely to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are absolutely correct if the goal is the public good.Corporations , on the other hand , are not about the public good.t would be nice if Microsoft cared , but Microsoft is a corporation .
A publicly traded corporation , no less ; publicly traded corporations are required , by law , to be self-serving and to maximize profit over other considerations .
If they do n't , they can be sued by shareholders for not doing it.So , nice as it would be , unless you can come up with a way to convince Microsoft to convince Microsoft shareholders that the goodwill would turn into profits that exceed the profit available with the current , selfish strategy , I think it 's not so likely to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are absolutely correct if the goal is the public good.Corporations, on the other hand, are not about the public good.t would be nice if Microsoft cared, but Microsoft is a corporation.
A publicly traded corporation, no less; publicly traded corporations are required, by law, to be self-serving and to maximize profit over other considerations.
If they don't, they can be sued by shareholders for not doing it.So, nice as it would be, unless you can come up with a way to convince Microsoft to convince Microsoft shareholders that the goodwill would turn into profits that exceed the profit available with the current, selfish strategy, I think it's not so likely to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29962866</id>
	<title>Give it away for free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Microsoft seems to be arguing that malware rates would shrink if they gave Windows away for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Microsoft seems to be arguing that malware rates would shrink if they gave Windows away for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Microsoft seems to be arguing that malware rates would shrink if they gave Windows away for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957740</id>
	<title>Re:safer users</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1257169860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are plenty of people that sell computers with pirated versions of Windows installed. Of course, the <em>really</em> computer illiterate will buy from someplace like FutureShop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of people that sell computers with pirated versions of Windows installed .
Of course , the really computer illiterate will buy from someplace like FutureShop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of people that sell computers with pirated versions of Windows installed.
Of course, the really computer illiterate will buy from someplace like FutureShop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902</id>
	<title>So....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257166080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So malware is Microsoft's fault for not patching pirated machines? Or did I miss something...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So malware is Microsoft 's fault for not patching pirated machines ?
Or did I miss something.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So malware is Microsoft's fault for not patching pirated machines?
Or did I miss something...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958706</id>
	<title>Let other people beta test patches first</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1257174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I pick up clients I make sure their "licensing"[sic] is brought into compliance. It's amazing how many PCs are in small-to-medium-size businesses where IT folk install "pirated" ("Yar! yo ho ho and a bottle of rum") corporate editions. I bring them into compliance but I use policies and now WSUS to restrict patches for days to weeks after release to learn of reports of patches breaking systems. They're always behind firewall appliances and running some sort of antivirus and anti-malware software. Why I am I so wary? I've seen many instances where Microsoft patches have broken software, ranging from being able to mount Microsoft Exchange info stores to rendering Windows itself unbootable.  For clients on the go (notebooks, etc) I'll tell them sure, go ahead and update when prompted, keeping in mind that the patches haven't been proven in the field yet.</p><p>It's not just counterfeit license users who avoid patching; many delay patching until the updates have been proven "safe," or if the IT budget allows (it rarely does), testing them in a staging environment.</p><p>The best practice is to set up a WSUS server and push the updates out from your own servers, controlling when and where the updates get rolled out to client workstations (and other member servers). The sad thing is that almost no businesses value best practices until having experienced at least one catastrophic failure. Heck, getting smaller companies to accept even a reasonable backup regimen is like pulling teeth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I pick up clients I make sure their " licensing " [ sic ] is brought into compliance .
It 's amazing how many PCs are in small-to-medium-size businesses where IT folk install " pirated " ( " Yar !
yo ho ho and a bottle of rum " ) corporate editions .
I bring them into compliance but I use policies and now WSUS to restrict patches for days to weeks after release to learn of reports of patches breaking systems .
They 're always behind firewall appliances and running some sort of antivirus and anti-malware software .
Why I am I so wary ?
I 've seen many instances where Microsoft patches have broken software , ranging from being able to mount Microsoft Exchange info stores to rendering Windows itself unbootable .
For clients on the go ( notebooks , etc ) I 'll tell them sure , go ahead and update when prompted , keeping in mind that the patches have n't been proven in the field yet.It 's not just counterfeit license users who avoid patching ; many delay patching until the updates have been proven " safe , " or if the IT budget allows ( it rarely does ) , testing them in a staging environment.The best practice is to set up a WSUS server and push the updates out from your own servers , controlling when and where the updates get rolled out to client workstations ( and other member servers ) .
The sad thing is that almost no businesses value best practices until having experienced at least one catastrophic failure .
Heck , getting smaller companies to accept even a reasonable backup regimen is like pulling teeth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I pick up clients I make sure their "licensing"[sic] is brought into compliance.
It's amazing how many PCs are in small-to-medium-size businesses where IT folk install "pirated" ("Yar!
yo ho ho and a bottle of rum") corporate editions.
I bring them into compliance but I use policies and now WSUS to restrict patches for days to weeks after release to learn of reports of patches breaking systems.
They're always behind firewall appliances and running some sort of antivirus and anti-malware software.
Why I am I so wary?
I've seen many instances where Microsoft patches have broken software, ranging from being able to mount Microsoft Exchange info stores to rendering Windows itself unbootable.
For clients on the go (notebooks, etc) I'll tell them sure, go ahead and update when prompted, keeping in mind that the patches haven't been proven in the field yet.It's not just counterfeit license users who avoid patching; many delay patching until the updates have been proven "safe," or if the IT budget allows (it rarely does), testing them in a staging environment.The best practice is to set up a WSUS server and push the updates out from your own servers, controlling when and where the updates get rolled out to client workstations (and other member servers).
The sad thing is that almost no businesses value best practices until having experienced at least one catastrophic failure.
Heck, getting smaller companies to accept even a reasonable backup regimen is like pulling teeth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957170</id>
	<title>The solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update.</p> </div><p>Make Windows free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update .
Make Windows free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update.
Make Windows free.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958510</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be what microsoft wanted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you purposely push out "security patches" that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated, then yes, they are leery of using them, and rightly so</p></div><p>Don't forget the legit copies they disable. Any of those OEM keys that shady computer repair shops have gotten their hands on.</p><p>Microsoft also disabled my legit key. Apparently if you activate Windows on 4 different motherboards with 3 different CPUs, 4 different types of memory, 3 different GPUs, 6 different HDD setups, from 3 different IPs/ISPs, they find it suspicious and refuse to give you a new key.</p><p>Of course, what actually happened was my PSU blew up my old board. It wasn't good for overclocking, so I got a different one. Then the new PSU blew up the new board(bad luck - never going Antec again) and some memory. After getting it fixed, I sold my CPU and upgraded that and my GPU. I was running out of space, so I also got an HDD upgrade. Then later I moved most of them over to a NAS. Eventually I wanted to upgrade again, so I gave a family member my old PC(after wiping Windows and installing Ubuntu, *gasp*) and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs.</p><p>Microsoft found it suspicious - too suspicious - and yet I'm in the right, because my XP key was only in use on a single machine. I believe a contributing factor was the ISP switching, and my IP geolocation resolving incorrectly. For a while it resolved to Ontario, then Alberta, then BC. Originally I could even watch Hulu (and I'm Canadian), so I know the geolocation software failed pretty badly.</p><p>Right now I'm using XP, but it's not the license key I originally bought. There's no way I'm letting a company force me to pay twice! Everyone I know buys a single license and uses it on every computer in their home, but here I am doing it the right way, and they screw me! Never again!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you purposely push out " security patches " that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated , then yes , they are leery of using them , and rightly soDo n't forget the legit copies they disable .
Any of those OEM keys that shady computer repair shops have gotten their hands on.Microsoft also disabled my legit key .
Apparently if you activate Windows on 4 different motherboards with 3 different CPUs , 4 different types of memory , 3 different GPUs , 6 different HDD setups , from 3 different IPs/ISPs , they find it suspicious and refuse to give you a new key.Of course , what actually happened was my PSU blew up my old board .
It was n't good for overclocking , so I got a different one .
Then the new PSU blew up the new board ( bad luck - never going Antec again ) and some memory .
After getting it fixed , I sold my CPU and upgraded that and my GPU .
I was running out of space , so I also got an HDD upgrade .
Then later I moved most of them over to a NAS .
Eventually I wanted to upgrade again , so I gave a family member my old PC ( after wiping Windows and installing Ubuntu , * gasp * ) and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs.Microsoft found it suspicious - too suspicious - and yet I 'm in the right , because my XP key was only in use on a single machine .
I believe a contributing factor was the ISP switching , and my IP geolocation resolving incorrectly .
For a while it resolved to Ontario , then Alberta , then BC .
Originally I could even watch Hulu ( and I 'm Canadian ) , so I know the geolocation software failed pretty badly.Right now I 'm using XP , but it 's not the license key I originally bought .
There 's no way I 'm letting a company force me to pay twice !
Everyone I know buys a single license and uses it on every computer in their home , but here I am doing it the right way , and they screw me !
Never again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you purposely push out "security patches" that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated, then yes, they are leery of using them, and rightly soDon't forget the legit copies they disable.
Any of those OEM keys that shady computer repair shops have gotten their hands on.Microsoft also disabled my legit key.
Apparently if you activate Windows on 4 different motherboards with 3 different CPUs, 4 different types of memory, 3 different GPUs, 6 different HDD setups, from 3 different IPs/ISPs, they find it suspicious and refuse to give you a new key.Of course, what actually happened was my PSU blew up my old board.
It wasn't good for overclocking, so I got a different one.
Then the new PSU blew up the new board(bad luck - never going Antec again) and some memory.
After getting it fixed, I sold my CPU and upgraded that and my GPU.
I was running out of space, so I also got an HDD upgrade.
Then later I moved most of them over to a NAS.
Eventually I wanted to upgrade again, so I gave a family member my old PC(after wiping Windows and installing Ubuntu, *gasp*) and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs.Microsoft found it suspicious - too suspicious - and yet I'm in the right, because my XP key was only in use on a single machine.
I believe a contributing factor was the ISP switching, and my IP geolocation resolving incorrectly.
For a while it resolved to Ontario, then Alberta, then BC.
Originally I could even watch Hulu (and I'm Canadian), so I know the geolocation software failed pretty badly.Right now I'm using XP, but it's not the license key I originally bought.
There's no way I'm letting a company force me to pay twice!
Everyone I know buys a single license and uses it on every computer in their home, but here I am doing it the right way, and they screw me!
Never again!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958444</id>
	<title>Okay</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1257173340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have an allergy to B.S.  This sounds, at best, very suspect.  You don't need a Windows computer to write viruses for Windows.  You can compile binaries intended for Win32 on a Linux or BSD machine.  Heck, you could even use PHP, PERL, or other to take advantage of a security hole in Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an allergy to B.S .
This sounds , at best , very suspect .
You do n't need a Windows computer to write viruses for Windows .
You can compile binaries intended for Win32 on a Linux or BSD machine .
Heck , you could even use PHP , PERL , or other to take advantage of a security hole in Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an allergy to B.S.
This sounds, at best, very suspect.
You don't need a Windows computer to write viruses for Windows.
You can compile binaries intended for Win32 on a Linux or BSD machine.
Heck, you could even use PHP, PERL, or other to take advantage of a security hole in Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29964064</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be what microsoft wanted</title>
	<author>virg\_mattes</author>
	<datestamp>1257266760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>&gt; Eventually I wanted to upgrade again, so I gave a family member my old PC(after wiping Windows and installing Ubuntu, *gasp*) and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs.</i> <br>
<br>
This is not to say that I agree with the concept, but here's where you stepped outside the official license.  Since XP is licensed only for the first computer you install it on, when you did this and tried to install it on a new platform you violated the license.  Again, I think that license scheme sucks big time, but you can't say that you're "doing it the right way" and that Microsoft screwed you through trickery or by cancelling a legitimate license.  To them it's no longer legitimate.<br>
<br>
<i>&gt; There's no way I'm letting a company force me to pay twice!</i> <br>
<br>
I'm with you 1000 percent here, but then your only legal option is to pick a non-Windows OS.  Your XP license isn't invalid, though.  You could give it to the family member that got your old PC to install beside (or in place of) Ubuntu, and Microsoft would very likely activate it on that machine.<br>
<br>
Virg</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Eventually I wanted to upgrade again , so I gave a family member my old PC ( after wiping Windows and installing Ubuntu , * gasp * ) and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs .
This is not to say that I agree with the concept , but here 's where you stepped outside the official license .
Since XP is licensed only for the first computer you install it on , when you did this and tried to install it on a new platform you violated the license .
Again , I think that license scheme sucks big time , but you ca n't say that you 're " doing it the right way " and that Microsoft screwed you through trickery or by cancelling a legitimate license .
To them it 's no longer legitimate .
&gt; There 's no way I 'm letting a company force me to pay twice !
I 'm with you 1000 percent here , but then your only legal option is to pick a non-Windows OS .
Your XP license is n't invalid , though .
You could give it to the family member that got your old PC to install beside ( or in place of ) Ubuntu , and Microsoft would very likely activate it on that machine .
Virg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Eventually I wanted to upgrade again, so I gave a family member my old PC(after wiping Windows and installing Ubuntu, *gasp*) and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs.
This is not to say that I agree with the concept, but here's where you stepped outside the official license.
Since XP is licensed only for the first computer you install it on, when you did this and tried to install it on a new platform you violated the license.
Again, I think that license scheme sucks big time, but you can't say that you're "doing it the right way" and that Microsoft screwed you through trickery or by cancelling a legitimate license.
To them it's no longer legitimate.
&gt; There's no way I'm letting a company force me to pay twice!
I'm with you 1000 percent here, but then your only legal option is to pick a non-Windows OS.
Your XP license isn't invalid, though.
You could give it to the family member that got your old PC to install beside (or in place of) Ubuntu, and Microsoft would very likely activate it on that machine.
Virg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959078</id>
	<title>Re:The solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update.</p></div><p>Make Windows free.</p></div><p>Yeah, that's gonna happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update.Make Windows free.Yeah , that 's gon na happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update.Make Windows free.Yeah, that's gonna happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958672</id>
	<title>Why all of the MS bashing for this</title>
	<author>Drummergeek0</author>
	<datestamp>1257174540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pirating software is, wait for it, WRONG! Whether it is illegal or not, it is wrong. The argument that it is Microsoft's fault for the malware due to them trying to protect their products is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That mentality is the same as a burglar suing a homeowner if they hurt themselves while robbing a home. Or blaming the owner of a car for an accident caused by someone stealing the car. It is not Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that software works perfectly whether it is pirated or not. Blame the pirates, not Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pirating software is , wait for it , WRONG !
Whether it is illegal or not , it is wrong .
The argument that it is Microsoft 's fault for the malware due to them trying to protect their products is the dumbest thing I have ever heard .
That mentality is the same as a burglar suing a homeowner if they hurt themselves while robbing a home .
Or blaming the owner of a car for an accident caused by someone stealing the car .
It is not Microsoft 's responsibility to ensure that software works perfectly whether it is pirated or not .
Blame the pirates , not Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pirating software is, wait for it, WRONG!
Whether it is illegal or not, it is wrong.
The argument that it is Microsoft's fault for the malware due to them trying to protect their products is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
That mentality is the same as a burglar suing a homeowner if they hurt themselves while robbing a home.
Or blaming the owner of a car for an accident caused by someone stealing the car.
It is not Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that software works perfectly whether it is pirated or not.
Blame the pirates, not Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29971900</id>
	<title>Re:The solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257256980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Make Windows free.</i> </p><p>Still overpriced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make Windows free .
Still overpriced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make Windows free.
Still overpriced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068</id>
	<title>Re:So....</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1257167160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So malware is Microsoft's fault for not patching pirated machines? Or did I miss something...</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes and no.  It is true that by limiting patches to "legitimate" copies, they are making the odds of malware infection worse, and in doing so, are contributing to the botnet problem that creates truckloads of spam, wasted bandwidth, DOS attacks, and other nightmares that hurt everyone including their legitimate users.  So I think they're utter morons for acting the way they do.</p><p>That said, this is not the whole story.  A large percentage of malware comes from people installing pirated software.  People who pirate Windows are... wait for it... more likely to pirate other software, too.  Therefore, you'd expect a strong correlation between malware rate and pirated copies of Windows even if Microsoft did everything they could to keep pirated copies of Windows patched.  Their "Genuine Advantage" crap is merely compounding the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So malware is Microsoft 's fault for not patching pirated machines ?
Or did I miss something...Yes and no .
It is true that by limiting patches to " legitimate " copies , they are making the odds of malware infection worse , and in doing so , are contributing to the botnet problem that creates truckloads of spam , wasted bandwidth , DOS attacks , and other nightmares that hurt everyone including their legitimate users .
So I think they 're utter morons for acting the way they do.That said , this is not the whole story .
A large percentage of malware comes from people installing pirated software .
People who pirate Windows are... wait for it... more likely to pirate other software , too .
Therefore , you 'd expect a strong correlation between malware rate and pirated copies of Windows even if Microsoft did everything they could to keep pirated copies of Windows patched .
Their " Genuine Advantage " crap is merely compounding the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So malware is Microsoft's fault for not patching pirated machines?
Or did I miss something...Yes and no.
It is true that by limiting patches to "legitimate" copies, they are making the odds of malware infection worse, and in doing so, are contributing to the botnet problem that creates truckloads of spam, wasted bandwidth, DOS attacks, and other nightmares that hurt everyone including their legitimate users.
So I think they're utter morons for acting the way they do.That said, this is not the whole story.
A large percentage of malware comes from people installing pirated software.
People who pirate Windows are... wait for it... more likely to pirate other software, too.
Therefore, you'd expect a strong correlation between malware rate and pirated copies of Windows even if Microsoft did everything they could to keep pirated copies of Windows patched.
Their "Genuine Advantage" crap is merely compounding the problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957140</id>
	<title>Penance?</title>
	<author>xeromist</author>
	<datestamp>1257167400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps these pirates just feel such extreme guilt for copying Windows that they are rejecting patches and virtually flogging themselves with malware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps these pirates just feel such extreme guilt for copying Windows that they are rejecting patches and virtually flogging themselves with malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps these pirates just feel such extreme guilt for copying Windows that they are rejecting patches and virtually flogging themselves with malware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960282</id>
	<title>Re:Broadband speed might be more of an issue</title>
	<author>cheekyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257187200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So either the net cafe should download one copy and burn 50 SP copies and charge 25cents to 'borrow' the cd, with 15c refund if the bring it back.</p><p>Recycle the damn CDRs idiots, like the unsold food.</p><p>Surely if bandwidth is so rare and expensive, swapping and passing 1 CDR to 100 people will be easy.</p><p>No magazines there to buy that have the SP on cd?</p><p>Maybe all those pirate dvd movies should have SP2 included too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So either the net cafe should download one copy and burn 50 SP copies and charge 25cents to 'borrow ' the cd , with 15c refund if the bring it back.Recycle the damn CDRs idiots , like the unsold food.Surely if bandwidth is so rare and expensive , swapping and passing 1 CDR to 100 people will be easy.No magazines there to buy that have the SP on cd ? Maybe all those pirate dvd movies should have SP2 included too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So either the net cafe should download one copy and burn 50 SP copies and charge 25cents to 'borrow' the cd, with 15c refund if the bring it back.Recycle the damn CDRs idiots, like the unsold food.Surely if bandwidth is so rare and expensive, swapping and passing 1 CDR to 100 people will be easy.No magazines there to buy that have the SP on cd?Maybe all those pirate dvd movies should have SP2 included too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957134</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29964064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29970294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29980038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29967250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29962772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29968774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29969270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29971900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2342258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29971900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961366
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961364
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29980038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29968774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959626
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29962772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29969270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29959018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29961762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29963350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29958510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29964064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29960130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29970294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29967250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29956978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2342258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2342258.29957588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
