<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_03_2123258</id>
	<title>In Test, Windows 7 Vulnerable To 8 Out of 10 Viruses</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257240780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>As Windows 7's market share <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-upgrade-marketshare-mac,8977.html">passes 3.6\%</a>, up from 1.9\% the day before launch,
llManDrakell notes an experiment they did over at Sophos. They installed Windows 7 on a clean machine &mdash; with no anti-virus protection &mdash; with User Access Control in its default configuration. They threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door. <a href="http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable">Seven of them ran</a>; UAC stopped only one baddie that had run in the absense of UAC. "Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7."</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Windows 7 's market share passes 3.6 \ % , up from 1.9 \ % the day before launch , llManDrakell notes an experiment they did over at Sophos .
They installed Windows 7 on a clean machine    with no anti-virus protection    with User Access Control in its default configuration .
They threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door .
Seven of them ran ; UAC stopped only one baddie that had run in the absense of UAC .
" Lesson learned ?
You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Windows 7's market share passes 3.6\%, up from 1.9\% the day before launch,
llManDrakell notes an experiment they did over at Sophos.
They installed Windows 7 on a clean machine — with no anti-virus protection — with User Access Control in its default configuration.
They threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door.
Seven of them ran; UAC stopped only one baddie that had run in the absense of UAC.
"Lesson learned?
You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974364</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>heypete</author>
	<datestamp>1257275700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open Notepad (or whatever text editor you wish) using administrative privileges (right click, Run as Administrator). This will require a UAC prompt. Once the editor is open, then use it to open the Hosts file. You should now have write access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Notepad ( or whatever text editor you wish ) using administrative privileges ( right click , Run as Administrator ) .
This will require a UAC prompt .
Once the editor is open , then use it to open the Hosts file .
You should now have write access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Notepad (or whatever text editor you wish) using administrative privileges (right click, Run as Administrator).
This will require a UAC prompt.
Once the editor is open, then use it to open the Hosts file.
You should now have write access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969126</id>
	<title>How is this bad counting?</title>
	<author>shis-ka-bob</author>
	<datestamp>1257246300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went to TFA (the fine article, in this case) and it made perfect sense.  Windows 7 isn't virus compatible in 2 cases.  In another case, UAC actually works as expected.  I was actually a bit depressed that the other seven 'old' viruses worked just fine.  Like some other slashdotters, home is OS/X and Linux, but I still have to go to work and put up with servers and workstations that halt when the virus checker goes off.  This is at least as bad as the garbage collector delays of early Java.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to TFA ( the fine article , in this case ) and it made perfect sense .
Windows 7 is n't virus compatible in 2 cases .
In another case , UAC actually works as expected .
I was actually a bit depressed that the other seven 'old ' viruses worked just fine .
Like some other slashdotters , home is OS/X and Linux , but I still have to go to work and put up with servers and workstations that halt when the virus checker goes off .
This is at least as bad as the garbage collector delays of early Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to TFA (the fine article, in this case) and it made perfect sense.
Windows 7 isn't virus compatible in 2 cases.
In another case, UAC actually works as expected.
I was actually a bit depressed that the other seven 'old' viruses worked just fine.
Like some other slashdotters, home is OS/X and Linux, but I still have to go to work and put up with servers and workstations that halt when the virus checker goes off.
This is at least as bad as the garbage collector delays of early Java.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975610</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>bard</author>
	<datestamp>1256985660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you start notepad with administrative privilieges instead you wouldn't have had to disable UAC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you start notepad with administrative privilieges instead you would n't have had to disable UAC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you start notepad with administrative privilieges instead you wouldn't have had to disable UAC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968830</id>
	<title>Windows: Vulnerable to Viruses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er, still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, still.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977090</id>
	<title>And yet.......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in nearly 30 years of daily programming and a almost 2 decades of Internet usage I've never encountered one virus or work on my PC.  Gee.  Must be user error.   Stop going to the porn sites people.  Stop downloading the stupid videos that your cousin sends you from 40+ other forwarded AO fucking L emails.   If you live your personal lives like your online lives - you'd have AIDS already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in nearly 30 years of daily programming and a almost 2 decades of Internet usage I 've never encountered one virus or work on my PC .
Gee. Must be user error .
Stop going to the porn sites people .
Stop downloading the stupid videos that your cousin sends you from 40 + other forwarded AO fucking L emails .
If you live your personal lives like your online lives - you 'd have AIDS already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in nearly 30 years of daily programming and a almost 2 decades of Internet usage I've never encountered one virus or work on my PC.
Gee.  Must be user error.
Stop going to the porn sites people.
Stop downloading the stupid videos that your cousin sends you from 40+ other forwarded AO fucking L emails.
If you live your personal lives like your online lives - you'd have AIDS already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969578</id>
	<title>You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1257247920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7</p></div><p>There's a classic example of abductive reasoning. I do not have to run anti-virus on Windows 7 because I don't, nor do I ever plan to run Windows 7.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7There 's a classic example of abductive reasoning .
I do not have to run anti-virus on Windows 7 because I do n't , nor do I ever plan to run Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7There's a classic example of abductive reasoning.
I do not have to run anti-virus on Windows 7 because I don't, nor do I ever plan to run Windows 7.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970202</id>
	<title>Great News!</title>
	<author>doomday</author>
	<datestamp>1257249780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows 7 is backwards compatible!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is backwards compatible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is backwards compatible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972122</id>
	<title>Anti-virus unneeded</title>
	<author>Renegrade</author>
	<datestamp>1257258540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just stop running the damn viruses!  It would have been 0/10 if they hadn't run them!</p><p>Seriously - I've been using 95/98/NT4/NT5/NT5.1 machines for over a decade, and I've never had a single virus.  My anti-virus solutions are always installed with all of the (system breaking) protection disabled, and I just run a scan occasionally.  Ditto for Amiga software prior to that.  Ditto for the Linux servers I run.</p><p>Simple caution when installing things and prudent use of firewalls keeps away five nines of problems.   Don't torrent l33t 0-1 day w4r3Z.  Don't run cracks*. Don't use sketchy peer-to-peer software.  When downloading free/oss/shareware, download only trusted, well known software, and download it directly from the source.  Run md5 or sha sums, just in case.  Don't let any children use your machine, or friends, or other sorts of retards, err, infection vectors.   Don't use HTML-enabled email clients (I'm looking at you, Outlook), or if you do, use webmail products with a safe(ish) browser.</p><p>* If you absolutely have to, use only serial-generating ones, and run those from a secured emulated environment or system that gets re-ghosted after each serial run.  It's easier just to buy the software or switch to a F/OSS solution though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just stop running the damn viruses !
It would have been 0/10 if they had n't run them ! Seriously - I 've been using 95/98/NT4/NT5/NT5.1 machines for over a decade , and I 've never had a single virus .
My anti-virus solutions are always installed with all of the ( system breaking ) protection disabled , and I just run a scan occasionally .
Ditto for Amiga software prior to that .
Ditto for the Linux servers I run.Simple caution when installing things and prudent use of firewalls keeps away five nines of problems .
Do n't torrent l33t 0-1 day w4r3Z .
Do n't run cracks * .
Do n't use sketchy peer-to-peer software .
When downloading free/oss/shareware , download only trusted , well known software , and download it directly from the source .
Run md5 or sha sums , just in case .
Do n't let any children use your machine , or friends , or other sorts of retards , err , infection vectors .
Do n't use HTML-enabled email clients ( I 'm looking at you , Outlook ) , or if you do , use webmail products with a safe ( ish ) browser .
* If you absolutely have to , use only serial-generating ones , and run those from a secured emulated environment or system that gets re-ghosted after each serial run .
It 's easier just to buy the software or switch to a F/OSS solution though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just stop running the damn viruses!
It would have been 0/10 if they hadn't run them!Seriously - I've been using 95/98/NT4/NT5/NT5.1 machines for over a decade, and I've never had a single virus.
My anti-virus solutions are always installed with all of the (system breaking) protection disabled, and I just run a scan occasionally.
Ditto for Amiga software prior to that.
Ditto for the Linux servers I run.Simple caution when installing things and prudent use of firewalls keeps away five nines of problems.
Don't torrent l33t 0-1 day w4r3Z.
Don't run cracks*.
Don't use sketchy peer-to-peer software.
When downloading free/oss/shareware, download only trusted, well known software, and download it directly from the source.
Run md5 or sha sums, just in case.
Don't let any children use your machine, or friends, or other sorts of retards, err, infection vectors.
Don't use HTML-enabled email clients (I'm looking at you, Outlook), or if you do, use webmail products with a safe(ish) browser.
* If you absolutely have to, use only serial-generating ones, and run those from a secured emulated environment or system that gets re-ghosted after each serial run.
It's easier just to buy the software or switch to a F/OSS solution though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975542</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1256984880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow... people like you are a clear sign that UAC is too easy to disable. There are MANY ways around what you faced, most of them simply common sense. On any tech forum with a less blatant anti-MS bias, you'd probably be laughed off the page as a troll, unfortunately some mods apparently think that even though you apparently can't tell an ACL from your ankle, you've nonetheless created an "informative" post.</p><ul><li>Have you ever considered running your editor as an Administrator? Believe it or not, this allows you to edit files that only Admin has write access to! Right-click is your friend here.</li><li>Are you suggesting that Windows should have known you were going to want to edit the HOSTS file and required Admin before opening it? Hint: that's retarded; even standard users are allowed to *view* the file.</li><li>Are you upset that whatever editor you used (probably Notepad, which is essentially a window and basic file I/O wrapped around a TextArea control) didn't automatically know to elevate itself? Damn few apps have this code, and Notepad isn't one of them.</li><li>Perhaps you're upset that a "Local DNS file" isn't world-writable by default (because you think allowing any random standard user to completely fuck up the system's Internet connnection is a sane default configuration)?</li><li>Maybe you're just frustrated because your understanding of computer security is so painfully minimal it never occurred to you that you could, if you wish, edit the permission of the HOSTS file to make it user-writable?</li><li>Alternatively, maybe you feel that the OS should offer a UAC prompt that would edit the file's security</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... people like you are a clear sign that UAC is too easy to disable .
There are MANY ways around what you faced , most of them simply common sense .
On any tech forum with a less blatant anti-MS bias , you 'd probably be laughed off the page as a troll , unfortunately some mods apparently think that even though you apparently ca n't tell an ACL from your ankle , you 've nonetheless created an " informative " post.Have you ever considered running your editor as an Administrator ?
Believe it or not , this allows you to edit files that only Admin has write access to !
Right-click is your friend here.Are you suggesting that Windows should have known you were going to want to edit the HOSTS file and required Admin before opening it ?
Hint : that 's retarded ; even standard users are allowed to * view * the file.Are you upset that whatever editor you used ( probably Notepad , which is essentially a window and basic file I/O wrapped around a TextArea control ) did n't automatically know to elevate itself ?
Damn few apps have this code , and Notepad is n't one of them.Perhaps you 're upset that a " Local DNS file " is n't world-writable by default ( because you think allowing any random standard user to completely fuck up the system 's Internet connnection is a sane default configuration ) ? Maybe you 're just frustrated because your understanding of computer security is so painfully minimal it never occurred to you that you could , if you wish , edit the permission of the HOSTS file to make it user-writable ? Alternatively , maybe you feel that the OS should offer a UAC prompt that would edit the file 's security</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... people like you are a clear sign that UAC is too easy to disable.
There are MANY ways around what you faced, most of them simply common sense.
On any tech forum with a less blatant anti-MS bias, you'd probably be laughed off the page as a troll, unfortunately some mods apparently think that even though you apparently can't tell an ACL from your ankle, you've nonetheless created an "informative" post.Have you ever considered running your editor as an Administrator?
Believe it or not, this allows you to edit files that only Admin has write access to!
Right-click is your friend here.Are you suggesting that Windows should have known you were going to want to edit the HOSTS file and required Admin before opening it?
Hint: that's retarded; even standard users are allowed to *view* the file.Are you upset that whatever editor you used (probably Notepad, which is essentially a window and basic file I/O wrapped around a TextArea control) didn't automatically know to elevate itself?
Damn few apps have this code, and Notepad isn't one of them.Perhaps you're upset that a "Local DNS file" isn't world-writable by default (because you think allowing any random standard user to completely fuck up the system's Internet connnection is a sane default configuration)?Maybe you're just frustrated because your understanding of computer security is so painfully minimal it never occurred to you that you could, if you wish, edit the permission of the HOSTS file to make it user-writable?Alternatively, maybe you feel that the OS should offer a UAC prompt that would edit the file's security</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972914</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1257264540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you some kind of total spaz?! Elevate your editor!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you some kind of total spaz ? !
Elevate your editor !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you some kind of total spaz?!
Elevate your editor!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975566</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>spongman</author>
	<datestamp>1256985000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>&lt;Ctrl+Esc&gt;notepad \%windir\%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts&lt;Ctrl+Shift+Enter&gt;<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>notepad \ % windir \ % \ system32 \ drivers \ etc \ hosts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>notepad \%windir\%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971142</id>
	<title>Re:The newfie virus?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257253140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other 10\% run SELinux! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other 10 \ % run SELinux !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other 10\% run SELinux!
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969402</id>
	<title>no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door. Seven of them ran; UAC stopped only one baddie that had run in the absense of UAC. "Lesson learned? <b>You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7</b>."</p></div></blockquote><p>Lesson learned:  don't execute random questionable crap on your computer and you can almost certainly live without AV.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door .
Seven of them ran ; UAC stopped only one baddie that had run in the absense of UAC .
" Lesson learned ?
You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7 .
" Lesson learned : do n't execute random questionable crap on your computer and you can almost certainly live without AV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door.
Seven of them ran; UAC stopped only one baddie that had run in the absense of UAC.
"Lesson learned?
You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7.
"Lesson learned:  don't execute random questionable crap on your computer and you can almost certainly live without AV.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970042</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257249300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Content producers often tend to get their launch dates wrong. For example, the advertised launch date for Wolverine was off by a month!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Content producers often tend to get their launch dates wrong .
For example , the advertised launch date for Wolverine was off by a month !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Content producers often tend to get their launch dates wrong.
For example, the advertised launch date for Wolverine was off by a month!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970452</id>
	<title>Re:Why blacklist instead of whitelist?</title>
	<author>Avalain</author>
	<datestamp>1257250620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, who would make the list? As many viruses as there are in the world, there are many times more real programs that someone could conceivably want to run. A company could not possibly handle this list. When I build a program that is only meant to run in my office, I don't want to go around to every computer to add the program name to the list, much less submit the program for review to Microsoft.
<br> <br>
So basically that would leave it to the users and IT. You have to admit that there is no chance the average home user is going to be able to identify even a third of the processes listed in the task manager.
<br> <br>
Also, what would you do to stop a trojan? Somebody gets an email talking about this GREAT PROGRAM and they go and run it. What then? Does the system prompt you asking if this is a program that should be allowed to run? Because if it does that then the user will just press "Yes" and it's all over. Alternatively, if the system just flat out rejects it because it isn't something that was predefined to be allowed to run then how would they get it working if it was legitimate?
<br> <br>
Let's get back to your example, but instead of an exclusive club lets just call it a bar. Do you make a list of everyone who could potentially come in the door on any given day, or do you make a list of those punks who caused trouble last weekend and were kicked out? The difference is that a typical computer is not running very exclusive programs. Sure, a ton of home computers are going to be running MS Office, iTunes, maybe WoW or something. But then some computers will be running something like <a href="http://www.primopdf.com/" title="primopdf.com" rel="nofollow">PrimoPDF</a> [primopdf.com] (no, I've never heard of this program before now either).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , who would make the list ?
As many viruses as there are in the world , there are many times more real programs that someone could conceivably want to run .
A company could not possibly handle this list .
When I build a program that is only meant to run in my office , I do n't want to go around to every computer to add the program name to the list , much less submit the program for review to Microsoft .
So basically that would leave it to the users and IT .
You have to admit that there is no chance the average home user is going to be able to identify even a third of the processes listed in the task manager .
Also , what would you do to stop a trojan ?
Somebody gets an email talking about this GREAT PROGRAM and they go and run it .
What then ?
Does the system prompt you asking if this is a program that should be allowed to run ?
Because if it does that then the user will just press " Yes " and it 's all over .
Alternatively , if the system just flat out rejects it because it is n't something that was predefined to be allowed to run then how would they get it working if it was legitimate ?
Let 's get back to your example , but instead of an exclusive club lets just call it a bar .
Do you make a list of everyone who could potentially come in the door on any given day , or do you make a list of those punks who caused trouble last weekend and were kicked out ?
The difference is that a typical computer is not running very exclusive programs .
Sure , a ton of home computers are going to be running MS Office , iTunes , maybe WoW or something .
But then some computers will be running something like PrimoPDF [ primopdf.com ] ( no , I 've never heard of this program before now either ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, who would make the list?
As many viruses as there are in the world, there are many times more real programs that someone could conceivably want to run.
A company could not possibly handle this list.
When I build a program that is only meant to run in my office, I don't want to go around to every computer to add the program name to the list, much less submit the program for review to Microsoft.
So basically that would leave it to the users and IT.
You have to admit that there is no chance the average home user is going to be able to identify even a third of the processes listed in the task manager.
Also, what would you do to stop a trojan?
Somebody gets an email talking about this GREAT PROGRAM and they go and run it.
What then?
Does the system prompt you asking if this is a program that should be allowed to run?
Because if it does that then the user will just press "Yes" and it's all over.
Alternatively, if the system just flat out rejects it because it isn't something that was predefined to be allowed to run then how would they get it working if it was legitimate?
Let's get back to your example, but instead of an exclusive club lets just call it a bar.
Do you make a list of everyone who could potentially come in the door on any given day, or do you make a list of those punks who caused trouble last weekend and were kicked out?
The difference is that a typical computer is not running very exclusive programs.
Sure, a ton of home computers are going to be running MS Office, iTunes, maybe WoW or something.
But then some computers will be running something like PrimoPDF [primopdf.com] (no, I've never heard of this program before now either).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977668</id>
	<title>practice makes perfect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing they released vista first, you know, to give malicious software engineers some practice before the real windows 7 came out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing they released vista first , you know , to give malicious software engineers some practice before the real windows 7 came out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing they released vista first, you know, to give malicious software engineers some practice before the real windows 7 came out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968908</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous counting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in other words, 8 of 10 viruses wont even run on Windows 7.</p><p>What is that saying about compatibility issues in windows 7? I wonder how many legitimate pieces of software wont run in W7... 8/10?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in other words , 8 of 10 viruses wont even run on Windows 7.What is that saying about compatibility issues in windows 7 ?
I wonder how many legitimate pieces of software wont run in W7... 8/10 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in other words, 8 of 10 viruses wont even run on Windows 7.What is that saying about compatibility issues in windows 7?
I wonder how many legitimate pieces of software wont run in W7... 8/10?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972508</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257261180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Windows 7's market share<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1.9\% the day before launch</p></div></blockquote><p>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share <b>before</b> launch?</p></div><p>ARR, 'tis true, matey!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 's market share ... 1.9 \ % the day before launchWindows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ? ARR , 't is true , matey !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7's market share ... 1.9\% the day before launchWindows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?ARR, 'tis true, matey!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776</id>
	<title>Firewall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was the Windows Firewall up?  If not, how many of these viruses would've made it through the default Windows Firewall settings?  Or were these all of the "double click this attachment" variety?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was the Windows Firewall up ?
If not , how many of these viruses would 've made it through the default Windows Firewall settings ?
Or were these all of the " double click this attachment " variety ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was the Windows Firewall up?
If not, how many of these viruses would've made it through the default Windows Firewall settings?
Or were these all of the "double click this attachment" variety?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969436</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is all Sophos advertisement,  any OS will run code if user wants to do it under local previliges.  UAC will not block changes unless admin rights are requested by the code.<br>Sophos have not specified how they tested it, and whether the infection happened on the fly or they downloaded the code and executed with local rights</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is all Sophos advertisement , any OS will run code if user wants to do it under local previliges .
UAC will not block changes unless admin rights are requested by the code.Sophos have not specified how they tested it , and whether the infection happened on the fly or they downloaded the code and executed with local rights</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is all Sophos advertisement,  any OS will run code if user wants to do it under local previliges.
UAC will not block changes unless admin rights are requested by the code.Sophos have not specified how they tested it, and whether the infection happened on the fly or they downloaded the code and executed with local rights</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973874</id>
	<title>Headline is almost perfect.</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1257271920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses"</p><p>It's missing a 9!  Where is the 9?  It's supposed to be between the 8 and the 10!  Where is it???</p><p>Headline would be perfect if there was a 9 in the proper place. &gt;\_&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses " It 's missing a 9 !
Where is the 9 ?
It 's supposed to be between the 8 and the 10 !
Where is it ? ?
? Headline would be perfect if there was a 9 in the proper place .
&gt; \ _ &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses"It's missing a 9!
Where is the 9?
It's supposed to be between the 8 and the 10!
Where is it??
?Headline would be perfect if there was a 9 in the proper place.
&gt;\_&gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969992</id>
	<title>Lesson learned?</title>
	<author>Yunzil</author>
	<datestamp>1257249120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7."</i></p><p>Or you could start by turning up the UAC level.</p><p>People complain that UAC in Vista was too intrusive, so MS turned it down by default.  Now people are complaining that it doesn't do enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lesson learned ?
You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7 .
" Or you could start by turning up the UAC level.People complain that UAC in Vista was too intrusive , so MS turned it down by default .
Now people are complaining that it does n't do enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lesson learned?
You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7.
"Or you could start by turning up the UAC level.People complain that UAC in Vista was too intrusive, so MS turned it down by default.
Now people are complaining that it doesn't do enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973476</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257269580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if you try to modify<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts under Linux without admin privileges, you won't get very far either. You will need to elevate your text editor with sudo first. Or on Windows, you can run your editor as an administrative user by using the "Run as administrator" context menu item.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you try to modify /etc/hosts under Linux without admin privileges , you wo n't get very far either .
You will need to elevate your text editor with sudo first .
Or on Windows , you can run your editor as an administrative user by using the " Run as administrator " context menu item .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you try to modify /etc/hosts under Linux without admin privileges, you won't get very far either.
You will need to elevate your text editor with sudo first.
Or on Windows, you can run your editor as an administrative user by using the "Run as administrator" context menu item.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969002</id>
	<title>Two words...</title>
	<author>jornak</author>
	<datestamp>1257245820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No shit.</p><p>
&nbsp; I'm sure any other Windows OS shortly after launch is susceptible to many viruses as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit .
  I 'm sure any other Windows OS shortly after launch is susceptible to many viruses as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit.
  I'm sure any other Windows OS shortly after launch is susceptible to many viruses as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29979450</id>
	<title>Too light on the details (typical of an AV vendor)</title>
	<author>Xenophon Fenderson,</author>
	<datestamp>1257008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ran" can mean "totally pwned the computer", but "ran" can also mean "started execution but couldn't do much other than start spamming/portscanning" (which is, admittedly, bad enough).  UAC is designed to prevent pwning computers, not stopping execution, so I'd like to know which happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ran " can mean " totally pwned the computer " , but " ran " can also mean " started execution but could n't do much other than start spamming/portscanning " ( which is , admittedly , bad enough ) .
UAC is designed to prevent pwning computers , not stopping execution , so I 'd like to know which happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ran" can mean "totally pwned the computer", but "ran" can also mean "started execution but couldn't do much other than start spamming/portscanning" (which is, admittedly, bad enough).
UAC is designed to prevent pwning computers, not stopping execution, so I'd like to know which happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29983066</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257019320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share <b>before</b> launch?</i></p><p>Sure, there were a lot of beta testers.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ? Sure , there were a lot of beta testers .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?Sure, there were a lot of beta testers.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977868</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Chicken04GTO</author>
	<datestamp>1257003360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes.  MSDN.net (been running RTM for many months) as well as general availability of earlier versions (RC1), etc.  Many PC enthusiasts have been running some flavor of win7 for a long time now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
MSDN.net ( been running RTM for many months ) as well as general availability of earlier versions ( RC1 ) , etc .
Many PC enthusiasts have been running some flavor of win7 for a long time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
MSDN.net (been running RTM for many months) as well as general availability of earlier versions (RC1), etc.
Many PC enthusiasts have been running some flavor of win7 for a long time now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968926</id>
	<title>Guess what</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1257245520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The One And Only Solution, kids, is to only run executable code you can trust.</p><p>I don't have the time to discuss what this entails, but I can start you off with one source of software you definitely can <em>not</em> trust...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The One And Only Solution , kids , is to only run executable code you can trust.I do n't have the time to discuss what this entails , but I can start you off with one source of software you definitely can not trust.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The One And Only Solution, kids, is to only run executable code you can trust.I don't have the time to discuss what this entails, but I can start you off with one source of software you definitely can not trust...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973224</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257267240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had to turn UAC off so I could save files with Notepad...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:S</p><p>I know i could run notepad as an admin, but i tend to open the file itself from explorer, not through notepad file/open</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to turn UAC off so I could save files with Notepad... : SI know i could run notepad as an admin , but i tend to open the file itself from explorer , not through notepad file/open</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to turn UAC off so I could save files with Notepad... :SI know i could run notepad as an admin, but i tend to open the file itself from explorer, not through notepad file/open</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975064</id>
	<title>shift+control start notepad/editor from start menu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256980260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could press Win for start menu then type the name of the text editor and press shift+ctrl+enter to elevate it. It's a shame this doesn't work from other places like right click context menu or run though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could press Win for start menu then type the name of the text editor and press shift + ctrl + enter to elevate it .
It 's a shame this does n't work from other places like right click context menu or run though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could press Win for start menu then type the name of the text editor and press shift+ctrl+enter to elevate it.
It's a shame this doesn't work from other places like right click context menu or run though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972170</id>
	<title>Typical slashdot bias...</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1257258780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is proof slashdot is biased, do you notice how slashdoters like to pick on Windows? You'd never see an article talking about people having problems with Ubun... wait... fuck...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is proof slashdot is biased , do you notice how slashdoters like to pick on Windows ?
You 'd never see an article talking about people having problems with Ubun... wait... fuck.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is proof slashdot is biased, do you notice how slashdoters like to pick on Windows?
You'd never see an article talking about people having problems with Ubun... wait... fuck...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974610</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257278100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try running your editor with admin privileges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try running your editor with admin privileges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try running your editor with admin privileges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29981438</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Harktanenbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1257014760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><div><p>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share <b>before</b> launch?</p></div></div><p>Launch occured on October 22nd but the RTM version of windows 7 has been available to volume licensing customers and msdn subscribers a while before that (I believe since July) so lots of companies have been able to start their migration process months in advance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ? Launch occured on October 22nd but the RTM version of windows 7 has been available to volume licensing customers and msdn subscribers a while before that ( I believe since July ) so lots of companies have been able to start their migration process months in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?Launch occured on October 22nd but the RTM version of windows 7 has been available to volume licensing customers and msdn subscribers a while before that (I believe since July) so lots of companies have been able to start their migration process months in advance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969012</id>
	<title>Re:Zero-day viruses aren't what they used to be...</title>
	<author>Imrik</author>
	<datestamp>1257245880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two of the viruses were written before Vista was released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two of the viruses were written before Vista was released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two of the viruses were written before Vista was released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975456</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256983980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yep... before launch W7 beat out most linux distros.  shame that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yep... before launch W7 beat out most linux distros .
shame that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yep... before launch W7 beat out most linux distros.
shame that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970264</id>
	<title>Stupid test?</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1257249960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They got some malware, and ran it. If these malware did not need elevated privileges, they are expected to run. You download a bash script from the net that goes
"\rm -rf ~" and then complain that your $home is hosed?  I am not sure the test is fair. Did the malware get root privileges? Did they do any damage that simple plain process with user privilege could not do? Unless such things happened, this test amounts to nothing more than testing backward compatibility of some old binaries in new OS. Duh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They got some malware , and ran it .
If these malware did not need elevated privileges , they are expected to run .
You download a bash script from the net that goes " \ rm -rf ~ " and then complain that your $ home is hosed ?
I am not sure the test is fair .
Did the malware get root privileges ?
Did they do any damage that simple plain process with user privilege could not do ?
Unless such things happened , this test amounts to nothing more than testing backward compatibility of some old binaries in new OS .
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got some malware, and ran it.
If these malware did not need elevated privileges, they are expected to run.
You download a bash script from the net that goes
"\rm -rf ~" and then complain that your $home is hosed?
I am not sure the test is fair.
Did the malware get root privileges?
Did they do any damage that simple plain process with user privilege could not do?
Unless such things happened, this test amounts to nothing more than testing backward compatibility of some old binaries in new OS.
Duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29981984</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>lightning\_queen</author>
	<datestamp>1257016380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably counts RC users (which have to register), launch party hosts, and institutions that had access to the release software before launch day (such as schools, I've actually had my hands on a release copy of Win7 Pro for nearly a month).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably counts RC users ( which have to register ) , launch party hosts , and institutions that had access to the release software before launch day ( such as schools , I 've actually had my hands on a release copy of Win7 Pro for nearly a month ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably counts RC users (which have to register), launch party hosts, and institutions that had access to the release software before launch day (such as schools, I've actually had my hands on a release copy of Win7 Pro for nearly a month).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970250</id>
	<title>Re:The newfie virus?</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1257249960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the other 10\%?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the other 10 \ % ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the other 10\%?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971892</id>
	<title>Re:Is this really surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257256920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it say something about me that to start with I read the first word in your post as "Vista"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it say something about me that to start with I read the first word in your post as " Vista " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it say something about me that to start with I read the first word in your post as "Vista"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968780</id>
	<title>Congrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On your successful slashvertisement. But Slashdot was the wrong target for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On your successful slashvertisement .
But Slashdot was the wrong target for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On your successful slashvertisement.
But Slashdot was the wrong target for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969360</id>
	<title>Re:Old song</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1257247200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only simple minded idiots think Mac's dont get viruses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only simple minded idiots think Mac 's dont get viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only simple minded idiots think Mac's dont get viruses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969634</id>
	<title>Yet another lesson revision...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257248100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, even Mac and Linux need (and regularly run) anti-virus software... If the role demands it.</p><p>Grandma running a Mac to check her email and (gah!) facebook will likely never need it.</p><p>Linux running a mail server absolutely needs to have and run it. It would be downright irresponsible not to, regardless of whether the Linux server was vulnerable to any of the viruses coming through or not.</p><p>and to also throw in my "who is surprised by this?"... You mean to tell me that they are surprised that windows software, written to specifically take advantage of a "feature" of windows, still runs on the newest version of windows, which is only minimally different from previous versions of windows, and was written specifically to remain as compatible as possible with previous windows software?... Hmmm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , even Mac and Linux need ( and regularly run ) anti-virus software... If the role demands it.Grandma running a Mac to check her email and ( gah !
) facebook will likely never need it.Linux running a mail server absolutely needs to have and run it .
It would be downright irresponsible not to , regardless of whether the Linux server was vulnerable to any of the viruses coming through or not.and to also throw in my " who is surprised by this ? " .. .
You mean to tell me that they are surprised that windows software , written to specifically take advantage of a " feature " of windows , still runs on the newest version of windows , which is only minimally different from previous versions of windows , and was written specifically to remain as compatible as possible with previous windows software ? .. .
Hmmm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, even Mac and Linux need (and regularly run) anti-virus software... If the role demands it.Grandma running a Mac to check her email and (gah!
) facebook will likely never need it.Linux running a mail server absolutely needs to have and run it.
It would be downright irresponsible not to, regardless of whether the Linux server was vulnerable to any of the viruses coming through or not.and to also throw in my "who is surprised by this?"...
You mean to tell me that they are surprised that windows software, written to specifically take advantage of a "feature" of windows, still runs on the newest version of windows, which is only minimally different from previous versions of windows, and was written specifically to remain as compatible as possible with previous windows software?...
Hmmm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975214</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>holiggan</author>
	<datestamp>1256981700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that the RTM has been available for a few months now on MSDN and Technet, and that the public beta was available even before that, it's perfectly possible that 7 had 1,9\% market share before it's "official" release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that the RTM has been available for a few months now on MSDN and Technet , and that the public beta was available even before that , it 's perfectly possible that 7 had 1,9 \ % market share before it 's " official " release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that the RTM has been available for a few months now on MSDN and Technet, and that the public beta was available even before that, it's perfectly possible that 7 had 1,9\% market share before it's "official" release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973074</id>
	<title>Apple's ad firm nailed it</title>
	<author>pauljlucas</author>
	<datestamp>1257265980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-broken\_promises-us-20091023\_480x272.mov" title="apple.com">Trust me</a> [apple.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trust me [ apple.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trust me [apple.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977384</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>JBHarris</author>
	<datestamp>1257001140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people are suggesting you run notepad as administrator, which works fine. Another alternative is to save the edited file to your desktop, then drag it back into the proper folder (\%sysroot\%\system32\drivers\etc\). Then explorer will invoke the UAC prompt and do the update (overwrite) for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are suggesting you run notepad as administrator , which works fine .
Another alternative is to save the edited file to your desktop , then drag it back into the proper folder ( \ % sysroot \ % \ system32 \ drivers \ etc \ ) .
Then explorer will invoke the UAC prompt and do the update ( overwrite ) for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are suggesting you run notepad as administrator, which works fine.
Another alternative is to save the edited file to your desktop, then drag it back into the proper folder (\%sysroot\%\system32\drivers\etc\).
Then explorer will invoke the UAC prompt and do the update (overwrite) for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974568</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Sean Hederman</author>
	<datestamp>1257277740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the real world kid. Sad when Linux, despite 10 years of trying can't beat prerelease samples of Windows on the desktop.</p><p>But don't worry, it'll take over the desktop "Any day now (C) 1992"./</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the real world kid .
Sad when Linux , despite 10 years of trying ca n't beat prerelease samples of Windows on the desktop.But do n't worry , it 'll take over the desktop " Any day now ( C ) 1992 " ./</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the real world kid.
Sad when Linux, despite 10 years of trying can't beat prerelease samples of Windows on the desktop.But don't worry, it'll take over the desktop "Any day now (C) 1992"./</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758</id>
	<title>Ridiculous counting</title>
	<author>TheUnFounded</author>
	<datestamp>1257244980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those of you as confused by the numbers as I was:<br>
<br>
-Only 8 of the 10 successfully ran on Windows 7, the other 2 failed to even start<br>
-Of the 8 that successfully started, 1 was blocked by UAC</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you as confused by the numbers as I was : -Only 8 of the 10 successfully ran on Windows 7 , the other 2 failed to even start -Of the 8 that successfully started , 1 was blocked by UAC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you as confused by the numbers as I was:

-Only 8 of the 10 successfully ran on Windows 7, the other 2 failed to even start
-Of the 8 that successfully started, 1 was blocked by UAC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971234</id>
	<title>Sophos is sooo smart, and so are the people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257253560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that actually think they're above the internet and it's evil side. It should be obvious that you need to run antivirus, and practice safe browsing habits.</p><p>No ONE company can stop against all infections..hell, a team of them working together couldn't do that.</p><p>I don't care what Microsoft, Symantec or whoever the hell claims to be the end-all to bugs says or does. Someone with a brain, a keyboard, energy drinks, and a bad attitude can do whatever they want, if they want it bad enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that actually think they 're above the internet and it 's evil side .
It should be obvious that you need to run antivirus , and practice safe browsing habits.No ONE company can stop against all infections..hell , a team of them working together could n't do that.I do n't care what Microsoft , Symantec or whoever the hell claims to be the end-all to bugs says or does .
Someone with a brain , a keyboard , energy drinks , and a bad attitude can do whatever they want , if they want it bad enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that actually think they're above the internet and it's evil side.
It should be obvious that you need to run antivirus, and practice safe browsing habits.No ONE company can stop against all infections..hell, a team of them working together couldn't do that.I don't care what Microsoft, Symantec or whoever the hell claims to be the end-all to bugs says or does.
Someone with a brain, a keyboard, energy drinks, and a bad attitude can do whatever they want, if they want it bad enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987118</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256989080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used the full release version of Windows 7 for months before launch, downloading from MSDN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used the full release version of Windows 7 for months before launch , downloading from MSDN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used the full release version of Windows 7 for months before launch, downloading from MSDN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970940</id>
	<title>Windows ASLR, PAX, GRSecurity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257252360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought windows 7 introduced full ALSR (address space layout randomization) with windows core software protected against stack smashing as well with canaries? Just as GRSecurity patched Linux or  a smart OS like OpenBSD by default  How can these viruses work against full ALSR and protection against stack smashing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought windows 7 introduced full ALSR ( address space layout randomization ) with windows core software protected against stack smashing as well with canaries ?
Just as GRSecurity patched Linux or a smart OS like OpenBSD by default How can these viruses work against full ALSR and protection against stack smashing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought windows 7 introduced full ALSR (address space layout randomization) with windows core software protected against stack smashing as well with canaries?
Just as GRSecurity patched Linux or  a smart OS like OpenBSD by default  How can these viruses work against full ALSR and protection against stack smashing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973266</id>
	<title>PAX / ALSR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257267540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought windows 7 introduced full ALSR (address space layout randomization) with windows core software protected against stack smashing as well with canaries? Just as GRSecurity patched Linux or a smart OS like OpenBSD by default How can these viruses work against full ALSR and protection against stack smashing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought windows 7 introduced full ALSR ( address space layout randomization ) with windows core software protected against stack smashing as well with canaries ?
Just as GRSecurity patched Linux or a smart OS like OpenBSD by default How can these viruses work against full ALSR and protection against stack smashing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought windows 7 introduced full ALSR (address space layout randomization) with windows core software protected against stack smashing as well with canaries?
Just as GRSecurity patched Linux or a smart OS like OpenBSD by default How can these viruses work against full ALSR and protection against stack smashing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971366</id>
	<title>Re:High quality!</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257254160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So 8/10 viruses don't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards.</p> </div><p>Well, they had 3 years to get prepared with that Win7 alpha known as "Vista" ~</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So 8/10 viruses do n't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards .
Well , they had 3 years to get prepared with that Win7 alpha known as " Vista " ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So 8/10 viruses don't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards.
Well, they had 3 years to get prepared with that Win7 alpha known as "Vista" ~
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29980478</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. It's been usable in various pre-release states for a very f- long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
It 's been usable in various pre-release states for a very f- long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
It's been usable in various pre-release states for a very f- long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29992258</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257414180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before <b>lunch</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before lunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before lunch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969768</id>
	<title>Re:Why blacklist instead of whitelist?</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1257248400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The facilities are there, in Windows registry and group policy for instance (Software restriction policy, I believe it is called).  Some networks might even use those settings, but in general it's FAR FAR too much hassle (especially for a home user).  Some software firewalls even work this way already too - I know that pay-for versions of ZoneAlarm come with signature checking of the most popular apps and allow users to black/white list them from accessing the Internet/local network.</p><p>The problem is that people would still authorise the same crap as they do now to run because they just click yes when they see a security dialog.  And every time that software is updated (as specified by good network practice), you have to update all the signatures again (and query the user again, who gets bored/annoyed and just keeps clicking Yes).  And most viruses on home machines are because people *chose* to run a program that they didn't know the origin of, either by downloading, clicking I Agree or turning their security settings off.  And viruses still get through program exploits (macro viruses would be one old example - they appear to be Microsoft Word, which would obviously be "allowed" on the whitelist).</p><p>Also most "whitelists" can usually be hacked / added to by the virus itself if it gains the permissions of the user (how else would the user authorise it to run?) so they again become useless.  There are ways around this but they all annoy the user.</p><p>Basically, either these schemes stop everything working (and users cry foul every time they want to run something new or update their software) or throw so many "Do you want to allow this?" dialogs at the user that they quickly disable it or just click Yes to everything when they want run their spiffy new download from disreputable sites.</p><p>Network admins find it far too much hassle to exercise this level of control because of the problems it can cause (basically, users want to be able to run arbitrary code under their user accounts).</p><p>The problem is not viruses, or the whitelist/blacklist, the problem is providing glaring holes in the OS, running as administrator (or making privilege escalation trivial) and running programs that you don't know the origin of.  Stop those three things (the easiest of which is just to stop people wanting to run every program they download) and you stop the problem of computer viruses.  Whitelists just make that a little trickier, but always provide an avenue to either bypass the whitelist (by the program itself inserting itself into the list, like Windows Firewall allows in some Windows versions) or piss the user off with so many dialogs that they turn the security off / click Yes to everything each time (Windows UAC).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The facilities are there , in Windows registry and group policy for instance ( Software restriction policy , I believe it is called ) .
Some networks might even use those settings , but in general it 's FAR FAR too much hassle ( especially for a home user ) .
Some software firewalls even work this way already too - I know that pay-for versions of ZoneAlarm come with signature checking of the most popular apps and allow users to black/white list them from accessing the Internet/local network.The problem is that people would still authorise the same crap as they do now to run because they just click yes when they see a security dialog .
And every time that software is updated ( as specified by good network practice ) , you have to update all the signatures again ( and query the user again , who gets bored/annoyed and just keeps clicking Yes ) .
And most viruses on home machines are because people * chose * to run a program that they did n't know the origin of , either by downloading , clicking I Agree or turning their security settings off .
And viruses still get through program exploits ( macro viruses would be one old example - they appear to be Microsoft Word , which would obviously be " allowed " on the whitelist ) .Also most " whitelists " can usually be hacked / added to by the virus itself if it gains the permissions of the user ( how else would the user authorise it to run ?
) so they again become useless .
There are ways around this but they all annoy the user.Basically , either these schemes stop everything working ( and users cry foul every time they want to run something new or update their software ) or throw so many " Do you want to allow this ?
" dialogs at the user that they quickly disable it or just click Yes to everything when they want run their spiffy new download from disreputable sites.Network admins find it far too much hassle to exercise this level of control because of the problems it can cause ( basically , users want to be able to run arbitrary code under their user accounts ) .The problem is not viruses , or the whitelist/blacklist , the problem is providing glaring holes in the OS , running as administrator ( or making privilege escalation trivial ) and running programs that you do n't know the origin of .
Stop those three things ( the easiest of which is just to stop people wanting to run every program they download ) and you stop the problem of computer viruses .
Whitelists just make that a little trickier , but always provide an avenue to either bypass the whitelist ( by the program itself inserting itself into the list , like Windows Firewall allows in some Windows versions ) or piss the user off with so many dialogs that they turn the security off / click Yes to everything each time ( Windows UAC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The facilities are there, in Windows registry and group policy for instance (Software restriction policy, I believe it is called).
Some networks might even use those settings, but in general it's FAR FAR too much hassle (especially for a home user).
Some software firewalls even work this way already too - I know that pay-for versions of ZoneAlarm come with signature checking of the most popular apps and allow users to black/white list them from accessing the Internet/local network.The problem is that people would still authorise the same crap as they do now to run because they just click yes when they see a security dialog.
And every time that software is updated (as specified by good network practice), you have to update all the signatures again (and query the user again, who gets bored/annoyed and just keeps clicking Yes).
And most viruses on home machines are because people *chose* to run a program that they didn't know the origin of, either by downloading, clicking I Agree or turning their security settings off.
And viruses still get through program exploits (macro viruses would be one old example - they appear to be Microsoft Word, which would obviously be "allowed" on the whitelist).Also most "whitelists" can usually be hacked / added to by the virus itself if it gains the permissions of the user (how else would the user authorise it to run?
) so they again become useless.
There are ways around this but they all annoy the user.Basically, either these schemes stop everything working (and users cry foul every time they want to run something new or update their software) or throw so many "Do you want to allow this?
" dialogs at the user that they quickly disable it or just click Yes to everything when they want run their spiffy new download from disreputable sites.Network admins find it far too much hassle to exercise this level of control because of the problems it can cause (basically, users want to be able to run arbitrary code under their user accounts).The problem is not viruses, or the whitelist/blacklist, the problem is providing glaring holes in the OS, running as administrator (or making privilege escalation trivial) and running programs that you don't know the origin of.
Stop those three things (the easiest of which is just to stop people wanting to run every program they download) and you stop the problem of computer viruses.
Whitelists just make that a little trickier, but always provide an avenue to either bypass the whitelist (by the program itself inserting itself into the list, like Windows Firewall allows in some Windows versions) or piss the user off with so many dialogs that they turn the security off / click Yes to everything each time (Windows UAC).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.30001130</id>
	<title>Re:Firewall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257421980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of them were real viruses, they were all trojans. The surprising thing is that some of the trojans wouldn't run on win7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of them were real viruses , they were all trojans .
The surprising thing is that some of the trojans would n't run on win7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of them were real viruses, they were all trojans.
The surprising thing is that some of the trojans wouldn't run on win7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969652</id>
	<title>Cheerleading</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1257248160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> You won't hear a lot about virus problems with Windows 7 at Lifehacker.  Just about everybody over there who says bad things about Vista In Lipstick...sorry, I mean Vista SP2...damn, happened again...WIN7, gets their commenting privileges yanked. </p><p> I imagine one of their little contests in the next week or two will be encouraging their pet Win7 lovers to vote on the best on-line anti-virus scanner. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wo n't hear a lot about virus problems with Windows 7 at Lifehacker .
Just about everybody over there who says bad things about Vista In Lipstick...sorry , I mean Vista SP2...damn , happened again...WIN7 , gets their commenting privileges yanked .
I imagine one of their little contests in the next week or two will be encouraging their pet Win7 lovers to vote on the best on-line anti-virus scanner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You won't hear a lot about virus problems with Windows 7 at Lifehacker.
Just about everybody over there who says bad things about Vista In Lipstick...sorry, I mean Vista SP2...damn, happened again...WIN7, gets their commenting privileges yanked.
I imagine one of their little contests in the next week or two will be encouraging their pet Win7 lovers to vote on the best on-line anti-virus scanner. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968874</id>
	<title>Best anti-virus next?</title>
	<author>joevans</author>
	<datestamp>1257245400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So...what's the best anti-virus software for Windows 7?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So...what 's the best anti-virus software for Windows 7 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...what's the best anti-virus software for Windows 7?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29979008</id>
	<title>Score one for Backward Compatibilty</title>
	<author>bryguy5</author>
	<datestamp>1257007380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows 7 runs all my legacy appications! (and viruses)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 runs all my legacy appications !
( and viruses )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 runs all my legacy appications!
(and viruses)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.30045544</id>
	<title>i hate windows but this article is just FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257868380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is funny "we intentionally ran code we knew had virus in it and it worked OMG" i think that applies to any system that you run something that your not sure about.. i have a experiment desktop that i have been running with no virus scanner since the beta came out and it has not been infected once remotely, i run a virus scan from a cd about once every other week just to check.. i hate M$ products but this one was actually done right (for once, and yes they are now serving snow cones in hell and the temp won't melt them anymore).</p><p>and as a linux user i can say Yes there are viruses that attack linux as well, they are just extremely rare since all the script kiddies are focused on M$ products.</p><p>and yes you should always have a virus scanner on a comp that is just a simple DUUUUUHHH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is funny " we intentionally ran code we knew had virus in it and it worked OMG " i think that applies to any system that you run something that your not sure about.. i have a experiment desktop that i have been running with no virus scanner since the beta came out and it has not been infected once remotely , i run a virus scan from a cd about once every other week just to check.. i hate M $ products but this one was actually done right ( for once , and yes they are now serving snow cones in hell and the temp wo n't melt them anymore ) .and as a linux user i can say Yes there are viruses that attack linux as well , they are just extremely rare since all the script kiddies are focused on M $ products.and yes you should always have a virus scanner on a comp that is just a simple DUUUUUHHH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is funny "we intentionally ran code we knew had virus in it and it worked OMG" i think that applies to any system that you run something that your not sure about.. i have a experiment desktop that i have been running with no virus scanner since the beta came out and it has not been infected once remotely, i run a virus scan from a cd about once every other week just to check.. i hate M$ products but this one was actually done right (for once, and yes they are now serving snow cones in hell and the temp won't melt them anymore).and as a linux user i can say Yes there are viruses that attack linux as well, they are just extremely rare since all the script kiddies are focused on M$ products.and yes you should always have a virus scanner on a comp that is just a simple DUUUUUHHH</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972018</id>
	<title>Re:High quality!</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257257700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So 8/10 viruses don't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards.</i></p><p>Hey, so just install your apps on the D: drive and none of the viruses will work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So 8/10 viruses do n't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards.Hey , so just install your apps on the D : drive and none of the viruses will work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So 8/10 viruses don't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards.Hey, so just install your apps on the D: drive and none of the viruses will work!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29986382</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1256986080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's so hard to believe about it? RTM was made available well before launch through certain channels, and there's also the very popular free RC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's so hard to believe about it ?
RTM was made available well before launch through certain channels , and there 's also the very popular free RC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's so hard to believe about it?
RTM was made available well before launch through certain channels, and there's also the very popular free RC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976180</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256991540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right click Notepad and choose "run as administrator."  This allows you to save changes to protected files like the hosts file.</p><p>Now sudo make me a sandwich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right click Notepad and choose " run as administrator .
" This allows you to save changes to protected files like the hosts file.Now sudo make me a sandwich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right click Notepad and choose "run as administrator.
"  This allows you to save changes to protected files like the hosts file.Now sudo make me a sandwich.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972504</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257261180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open...Beta....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open...Beta... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open...Beta....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969160</id>
	<title>In Test, Kdawson Posted 10 out of 10 FUD Stories</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257246420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, this guy is almost pathological in his determination to distribute as much FUD as possible about Windows.</p><p>Taco: Fire this retard. The stuff he posts is NOT news for nerds. It is thinly veiled, and ineffective, smear pieces. Real stories about OS problems are interesting. Kdawson's FUD isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this guy is almost pathological in his determination to distribute as much FUD as possible about Windows.Taco : Fire this retard .
The stuff he posts is NOT news for nerds .
It is thinly veiled , and ineffective , smear pieces .
Real stories about OS problems are interesting .
Kdawson 's FUD is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this guy is almost pathological in his determination to distribute as much FUD as possible about Windows.Taco: Fire this retard.
The stuff he posts is NOT news for nerds.
It is thinly veiled, and ineffective, smear pieces.
Real stories about OS problems are interesting.
Kdawson's FUD isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969242</id>
	<title>Re:Zero-day viruses aren't what they used to be...</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1257246660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said that any of them were zero-day viruses?  re-read your own quote<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><blockquote><div><p>"The next 10 samples that came through the door". 8 out of 10 zero-day windows viruses infected an unprotected machine?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Most of the viruses that could "come through the door" would not be zero-day viruses.</p><blockquote><div><p>The calibre of virus writers isn't what it used to be</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Same could be said about your reading comprehension<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... HAND<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said that any of them were zero-day viruses ?
re-read your own quote ... " The next 10 samples that came through the door " .
8 out of 10 zero-day windows viruses infected an unprotected machine ?
Most of the viruses that could " come through the door " would not be zero-day viruses.The calibre of virus writers is n't what it used to be Same could be said about your reading comprehension ... HAND : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said that any of them were zero-day viruses?
re-read your own quote ..."The next 10 samples that came through the door".
8 out of 10 zero-day windows viruses infected an unprotected machine?
Most of the viruses that could "come through the door" would not be zero-day viruses.The calibre of virus writers isn't what it used to be

Same could be said about your reading comprehension ... HAND :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969188</id>
	<title>Fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I demand 100\% backwards compatibility damn it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I demand 100 \ % backwards compatibility damn it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I demand 100\% backwards compatibility damn it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972674</id>
	<title>Pull up your UAC!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257262380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This says it all.</p><p>http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2009/05/29/get-your-uac-defense-in-depth-slider-shirts-here.aspx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This says it all.http : //msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2009/05/29/get-your-uac-defense-in-depth-slider-shirts-here.aspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This says it all.http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2009/05/29/get-your-uac-defense-in-depth-slider-shirts-here.aspx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972528</id>
	<title>Mac requires AV too...</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1257261420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>....except the marketing guys call it "4\% market share". ZING!</htmltext>
<tokenext>....except the marketing guys call it " 4 \ % market share " .
ZING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....except the marketing guys call it "4\% market share".
ZING!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976744</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it was available on MSDN, Technet, etc. before launch.</p><p>Also, does that include the betas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it was available on MSDN , Technet , etc .
before launch.Also , does that include the betas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it was available on MSDN, Technet, etc.
before launch.Also, does that include the betas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974682</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257019440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to run notepad as elevated first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to run notepad as elevated first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to run notepad as elevated first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968728</id>
	<title>High quality!</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1257244920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So 8/10 viruses don't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards. If only the rest of the software industry had such high standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So 8/10 viruses do n't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards .
If only the rest of the software industry had such high standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So 8/10 viruses don't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards.
If only the rest of the software industry had such high standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968836</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1257245220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of it from the wife's perspective.</p><p>They've been good and faithful for ten years, and BAM, syphyllis, HIV, and herpes.</p><p>Because they KNEW their husband wasn't a dirty cheating bastard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of it from the wife 's perspective.They 've been good and faithful for ten years , and BAM , syphyllis , HIV , and herpes.Because they KNEW their husband was n't a dirty cheating bastard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of it from the wife's perspective.They've been good and faithful for ten years, and BAM, syphyllis, HIV, and herpes.Because they KNEW their husband wasn't a dirty cheating bastard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972660</id>
	<title>Re:More data needed</title>
	<author>Johnno74</author>
	<datestamp>1257262260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And another thing the "article" (and by "article" I mean "infomercial") didn't mention was how many of those malware apps successfully *infected* the machine.</p><p>Out of the 10, 2 threw an error and crashed, 8 "ran".  Whats his criteria for "ran".  I'm betting that means "didn't crash and burn horribly with an error message shown to the user."</p><p>I looked up the details on the first virus sophos listed (troj/fakeAV) <a href="http://www.ca.com/us/securityadvisor/virusinfo/virus.aspx?id=74100" title="ca.com">here</a> [ca.com] and apparently one of its actions is to add a link to the all users start menu folder here:</p><p>\%Documents and Settings\%\All Users\Start Menu\Programs\XP\_Antispyware\Uninstall.lnk</p><p>I know for a fact you can't write to this folder without UAC elevation on vista/7, so I'd say it is more likely than not that when the malware ran it tried to write to this folder, failed, and *caught the exception*.  The machine was NOT infected.</p><p>I'm not going to check each of the 8 malware apps he ran "successfully" but I'd be surprised if any of them were able to "infect" the pc in any meaninful way with UAC enabled, or if the user was running as non-admin.</p><p>In other words 8/10 malware apps are probably well written enough to have some sort of error handling that eats any errors that may occour without alerting the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And another thing the " article " ( and by " article " I mean " infomercial " ) did n't mention was how many of those malware apps successfully * infected * the machine.Out of the 10 , 2 threw an error and crashed , 8 " ran " .
Whats his criteria for " ran " .
I 'm betting that means " did n't crash and burn horribly with an error message shown to the user .
" I looked up the details on the first virus sophos listed ( troj/fakeAV ) here [ ca.com ] and apparently one of its actions is to add a link to the all users start menu folder here : \ % Documents and Settings \ % \ All Users \ Start Menu \ Programs \ XP \ _Antispyware \ Uninstall.lnkI know for a fact you ca n't write to this folder without UAC elevation on vista/7 , so I 'd say it is more likely than not that when the malware ran it tried to write to this folder , failed , and * caught the exception * .
The machine was NOT infected.I 'm not going to check each of the 8 malware apps he ran " successfully " but I 'd be surprised if any of them were able to " infect " the pc in any meaninful way with UAC enabled , or if the user was running as non-admin.In other words 8/10 malware apps are probably well written enough to have some sort of error handling that eats any errors that may occour without alerting the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And another thing the "article" (and by "article" I mean "infomercial") didn't mention was how many of those malware apps successfully *infected* the machine.Out of the 10, 2 threw an error and crashed, 8 "ran".
Whats his criteria for "ran".
I'm betting that means "didn't crash and burn horribly with an error message shown to the user.
"I looked up the details on the first virus sophos listed (troj/fakeAV) here [ca.com] and apparently one of its actions is to add a link to the all users start menu folder here:\%Documents and Settings\%\All Users\Start Menu\Programs\XP\_Antispyware\Uninstall.lnkI know for a fact you can't write to this folder without UAC elevation on vista/7, so I'd say it is more likely than not that when the malware ran it tried to write to this folder, failed, and *caught the exception*.
The machine was NOT infected.I'm not going to check each of the 8 malware apps he ran "successfully" but I'd be surprised if any of them were able to "infect" the pc in any meaninful way with UAC enabled, or if the user was running as non-admin.In other words 8/10 malware apps are probably well written enough to have some sort of error handling that eats any errors that may occour without alerting the user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29986230</id>
	<title>What's in a name?</title>
	<author>yoda-dono</author>
	<datestamp>1256985540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, have we finally figured out why it is called Windows 7?  Is it in fact because it runs 7 out of 10 viruses?  I see a pattern here...  I can't wait for Windows 10 !</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , have we finally figured out why it is called Windows 7 ?
Is it in fact because it runs 7 out of 10 viruses ?
I see a pattern here... I ca n't wait for Windows 10 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, have we finally figured out why it is called Windows 7?
Is it in fact because it runs 7 out of 10 viruses?
I see a pattern here...  I can't wait for Windows 10 !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968714</id>
	<title>Re:Not News!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Sure - just that you won't get a virus by running linux.  I have yet (in over a decade of tending linux and bsd servers) had a single machine get infected.
</p><p>
Lesson learned - friends don't let friends run Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who uses any computer ( including Mac AND Linux ) without anti-virus is asking for what they get Sure - just that you wo n't get a virus by running linux .
I have yet ( in over a decade of tending linux and bsd servers ) had a single machine get infected .
Lesson learned - friends do n't let friends run Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get

Sure - just that you won't get a virus by running linux.
I have yet (in over a decade of tending linux and bsd servers) had a single machine get infected.
Lesson learned - friends don't let friends run Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971348</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>D4MO</author>
	<datestamp>1257254100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beta 1, Beta 2 and the very publicly available RC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beta 1 , Beta 2 and the very publicly available RC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beta 1, Beta 2 and the very publicly available RC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968822</id>
	<title>Backwards compatible.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least it proves that windows 7 is backwards compatible. (Or is it the same code with some new jacket on?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least it proves that windows 7 is backwards compatible .
( Or is it the same code with some new jacket on ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least it proves that windows 7 is backwards compatible.
(Or is it the same code with some new jacket on?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971226</id>
	<title>And in other news . . .</title>
	<author>Tanman</author>
	<datestamp>1257253500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You still need seat belts in cars with airbags, fire departments for neighborhoods with fire resistant code compliance, and ambulances even if a doctor lives next door.</p><p>I mean, really . . . this is stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You still need seat belts in cars with airbags , fire departments for neighborhoods with fire resistant code compliance , and ambulances even if a doctor lives next door.I mean , really .
. .
this is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still need seat belts in cars with airbags, fire departments for neighborhoods with fire resistant code compliance, and ambulances even if a doctor lives next door.I mean, really .
. .
this is stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</id>
	<title>But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257250200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just recently had to edit the Host file. (Local DNS file).<br>Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just recently had to edit the Host file .
( Local DNS file ) .Could not save it because of UAC , and did n't get a UAC prompt either , had to give up and disable UAC first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just recently had to edit the Host file.
(Local DNS file).Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969276</id>
	<title>Missing the point of the article</title>
	<author>dwlovell</author>
	<datestamp>1257246840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure. You couldn't even come to that conclusion if you look at what they did. They ran untrusted code known to contain viruses on a Windows 7 machine. UAC only blocked those that tried to perform administrative tasks, which is what its job is. They did not try to do remote infection.</p><p>I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user's document folders. This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity, thus not triggering UAC. This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it's level of security. This is no different from any other platform, running as admin or not, if you run untrusted code, it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.</p><p>The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC *is* virus protection. Microsoft doesn't market it as virus protection, and people shouldn't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure .
You could n't even come to that conclusion if you look at what they did .
They ran untrusted code known to contain viruses on a Windows 7 machine .
UAC only blocked those that tried to perform administrative tasks , which is what its job is .
They did not try to do remote infection.I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user 's document folders .
This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity , thus not triggering UAC .
This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it 's level of security .
This is no different from any other platform , running as admin or not , if you run untrusted code , it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC * is * virus protection .
Microsoft does n't market it as virus protection , and people should n't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure.
You couldn't even come to that conclusion if you look at what they did.
They ran untrusted code known to contain viruses on a Windows 7 machine.
UAC only blocked those that tried to perform administrative tasks, which is what its job is.
They did not try to do remote infection.I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user's document folders.
This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity, thus not triggering UAC.
This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it's level of security.
This is no different from any other platform, running as admin or not, if you run untrusted code, it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC *is* virus protection.
Microsoft doesn't market it as virus protection, and people shouldn't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969648</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257248160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RC might be counted in that as well, but there were others who had subscriptions such as MSDN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RC might be counted in that as well , but there were others who had subscriptions such as MSDN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RC might be counted in that as well, but there were others who had subscriptions such as MSDN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971282</id>
	<title>all useful information absent</title>
	<author>edxwelch</author>
	<datestamp>1257253800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly do they mean by "threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door"?<br>How, exactly, did the viruses get on the machine?<br>opening mail attachment?<br>viewing website in ie?<br>msn?<br>wmp?<br>running naked exe?<br>or just connecting to internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly do they mean by " threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door " ? How , exactly , did the viruses get on the machine ? opening mail attachment ? viewing website in ie ? msn ? wmp ? running naked exe ? or just connecting to internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly do they mean by "threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door"?How, exactly, did the viruses get on the machine?opening mail attachment?viewing website in ie?msn?wmp?running naked exe?or just connecting to internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976406</id>
	<title>Microsoft claims...</title>
	<author>RancidMilk</author>
	<datestamp>1256994000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft claims that they will fix backwards compatibility so that all the viruses will work under its most recent OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft claims that they will fix backwards compatibility so that all the viruses will work under its most recent OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft claims that they will fix backwards compatibility so that all the viruses will work under its most recent OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970358</id>
	<title>Re:Why blacklist instead of whitelist?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1257250320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This makes logical sense to me, but (apparently) it isn't done.</p></div><p>It is done. Everytime Windows Firewall says "This application is trying to access the internet" and you hit unblock. Everytime Windows Vista says "You need administrative Rights to run this, do you want to continue?".</p><p>It's either<br>A) A whitelist the users can set, which frustrates users to a point that they don't care and allow everything they come across.<br>B) A blacklist run by some antivirus or another, which is constantly trying to keep up (and failing).<br>C) A whitelist that is set by some third party (Like Apple - which is why Macs are so Virus free*) which can annoy users when they can't run their application.</p><p>*They aren't, I know, but their software limitations are what keep them at their virtually safe status.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes logical sense to me , but ( apparently ) it is n't done.It is done .
Everytime Windows Firewall says " This application is trying to access the internet " and you hit unblock .
Everytime Windows Vista says " You need administrative Rights to run this , do you want to continue ?
" .It 's eitherA ) A whitelist the users can set , which frustrates users to a point that they do n't care and allow everything they come across.B ) A blacklist run by some antivirus or another , which is constantly trying to keep up ( and failing ) .C ) A whitelist that is set by some third party ( Like Apple - which is why Macs are so Virus free * ) which can annoy users when they ca n't run their application .
* They are n't , I know , but their software limitations are what keep them at their virtually safe status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes logical sense to me, but (apparently) it isn't done.It is done.
Everytime Windows Firewall says "This application is trying to access the internet" and you hit unblock.
Everytime Windows Vista says "You need administrative Rights to run this, do you want to continue?
".It's eitherA) A whitelist the users can set, which frustrates users to a point that they don't care and allow everything they come across.B) A blacklist run by some antivirus or another, which is constantly trying to keep up (and failing).C) A whitelist that is set by some third party (Like Apple - which is why Macs are so Virus free*) which can annoy users when they can't run their application.
*They aren't, I know, but their software limitations are what keep them at their virtually safe status.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974306</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You needed to run Notepad, or your text editor, with UAC elevation.<br>You'd experience something similar with sudo on Linux or Mac if you tried edit certain system files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You needed to run Notepad , or your text editor , with UAC elevation.You 'd experience something similar with sudo on Linux or Mac if you tried edit certain system files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You needed to run Notepad, or your text editor, with UAC elevation.You'd experience something similar with sudo on Linux or Mac if you tried edit certain system files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968734</id>
	<title>X64?</title>
	<author>snarfies</author>
	<datestamp>1257244920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So which version of Windows 7 was tested?  TFA does not specify.  Was it X64?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So which version of Windows 7 was tested ?
TFA does not specify .
Was it X64 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So which version of Windows 7 was tested?
TFA does not specify.
Was it X64?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971698</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257255780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Windows 7's market share<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1.9\% the day before launch</p></div></blockquote><p>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share <b>before</b> launch?</p></div><p>They had a trial and gave temporary keys that are still good you know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 's market share ... 1.9 \ % the day before launchWindows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ? They had a trial and gave temporary keys that are still good you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7's market share ... 1.9\% the day before launchWindows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?They had a trial and gave temporary keys that are still good you know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969370</id>
	<title>that's really gonna hurt Netbook performance</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1257247200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft has already limited the CPU cores and speed along with limiting max RAM installed on Netbooks running Windows 7 Starter so this is gonna hurt. Now that it's been proven they need anti-virus running too we'll have to see what kind of performance comparisons with Linux are going to get scripted for Microsoft. The big question should be what anit-virus software is running during the tests.<br><br>So, if the hardware people want out of the limits set by Microsoft then they will need to pay for the full version of Windows 7 too. That means higher hardware costs due to the need for increased performance to run Windows 7 safely and the higher cost of the OS. Another nice move pushing people to Linux Microsoft.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has already limited the CPU cores and speed along with limiting max RAM installed on Netbooks running Windows 7 Starter so this is gon na hurt .
Now that it 's been proven they need anti-virus running too we 'll have to see what kind of performance comparisons with Linux are going to get scripted for Microsoft .
The big question should be what anit-virus software is running during the tests.So , if the hardware people want out of the limits set by Microsoft then they will need to pay for the full version of Windows 7 too .
That means higher hardware costs due to the need for increased performance to run Windows 7 safely and the higher cost of the OS .
Another nice move pushing people to Linux Microsoft.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has already limited the CPU cores and speed along with limiting max RAM installed on Netbooks running Windows 7 Starter so this is gonna hurt.
Now that it's been proven they need anti-virus running too we'll have to see what kind of performance comparisons with Linux are going to get scripted for Microsoft.
The big question should be what anit-virus software is running during the tests.So, if the hardware people want out of the limits set by Microsoft then they will need to pay for the full version of Windows 7 too.
That means higher hardware costs due to the need for increased performance to run Windows 7 safely and the higher cost of the OS.
Another nice move pushing people to Linux Microsoft.LoB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973512</id>
	<title>A Little Censorship Never Hurt Anyone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257269880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Vista's security was overrated.  So, apparently, is Win7's. </p><p> This comment might not be around for long, because a good way to get your commenting status on Lifehacker revoked, or to get modded down to "Flamebait" on Slashdot, apparently, is to question whether Win7 is all it's cracked up to be.  I hold the seemingly-illegal view that Win7 is basically Vista with some of the really ugly stuff patched up a bit. I might consider moving over to it at around SP2.  Certainly not before. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista 's security was overrated .
So , apparently , is Win7 's .
This comment might not be around for long , because a good way to get your commenting status on Lifehacker revoked , or to get modded down to " Flamebait " on Slashdot , apparently , is to question whether Win7 is all it 's cracked up to be .
I hold the seemingly-illegal view that Win7 is basically Vista with some of the really ugly stuff patched up a bit .
I might consider moving over to it at around SP2 .
Certainly not before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Vista's security was overrated.
So, apparently, is Win7's.
This comment might not be around for long, because a good way to get your commenting status on Lifehacker revoked, or to get modded down to "Flamebait" on Slashdot, apparently, is to question whether Win7 is all it's cracked up to be.
I hold the seemingly-illegal view that Win7 is basically Vista with some of the really ugly stuff patched up a bit.
I might consider moving over to it at around SP2.
Certainly not before. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968668</id>
	<title>Was it ever in doubt?</title>
	<author>dijjnn</author>
	<datestamp>1257244680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, for (1) Windows 7 is very similar to Vista, with a lot of code reuse, and (2) the people who develop viruses target *almost exclusively* windows, so how would the need to run an antivirus on a new version of windows ever be something you would doubt?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , for ( 1 ) Windows 7 is very similar to Vista , with a lot of code reuse , and ( 2 ) the people who develop viruses target * almost exclusively * windows , so how would the need to run an antivirus on a new version of windows ever be something you would doubt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, for (1) Windows 7 is very similar to Vista, with a lot of code reuse, and (2) the people who develop viruses target *almost exclusively* windows, so how would the need to run an antivirus on a new version of windows ever be something you would doubt?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29979572</id>
	<title>Correction</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1257009120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't know what you're doing, you need to run antivirus.  These "tests" were performed by actually running the executables.  I don't consider that a vulnerability - If you invite murderers and rapists into your home is that fault of your security system or is it your own damn fault?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't know what you 're doing , you need to run antivirus .
These " tests " were performed by actually running the executables .
I do n't consider that a vulnerability - If you invite murderers and rapists into your home is that fault of your security system or is it your own damn fault ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't know what you're doing, you need to run antivirus.
These "tests" were performed by actually running the executables.
I don't consider that a vulnerability - If you invite murderers and rapists into your home is that fault of your security system or is it your own damn fault?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969200</id>
	<title>No, no, no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason people get viruses on Windows is because they steal it!<br>http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/02/2342258/Microsoft-Links-Malware-Rates-To-Pirated-Windows?art\_pos=20</p><p>It's simple; they must have been testing with a pirated copy of Windows 7!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason people get viruses on Windows is because they steal it ! http : //news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/02/2342258/Microsoft-Links-Malware-Rates-To-Pirated-Windows ? art \ _pos = 20It 's simple ; they must have been testing with a pirated copy of Windows 7 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason people get viruses on Windows is because they steal it!http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/02/2342258/Microsoft-Links-Malware-Rates-To-Pirated-Windows?art\_pos=20It's simple; they must have been testing with a pirated copy of Windows 7!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976162</id>
	<title>They need to undo years of bad practice</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1256991420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is in a hell of their own making. For years they have more or less taught users that:</p><p>*The way to install software is to pop some keywords into a search engine, and then run an un-trusted executable.</p><p>*The normal installation procedure involves clicking "yes" or "ok" on loads of dialogue boxes without reading them.</p><p>*Each app has its own installation procedure and it is perfectly normal that you have to do things you normally would not in order to get things<br>working.</p><p>That is only the tip of the iceberg of course. Hiding file extensions, executing apps by double clicking the file, programs changing your system configuration without asking you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Microsoft made it all seem normal, thereby opening the floodgates for all kinds of social engineering attacks. I have no idea how they are going to solve the problem now. If you spend years teaching people to do things one way, you can't just go "uhm we fucked up, do it this way instead" and expect people to trust you.</p><p>They taught users to be negligent about security, taunting it as a usability advantage ( Windows "just works" ), and now they are trying to undo the damage without losing face. "Good luck with that."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is in a hell of their own making .
For years they have more or less taught users that : * The way to install software is to pop some keywords into a search engine , and then run an un-trusted executable .
* The normal installation procedure involves clicking " yes " or " ok " on loads of dialogue boxes without reading them .
* Each app has its own installation procedure and it is perfectly normal that you have to do things you normally would not in order to get thingsworking.That is only the tip of the iceberg of course .
Hiding file extensions , executing apps by double clicking the file , programs changing your system configuration without asking you ... Microsoft made it all seem normal , thereby opening the floodgates for all kinds of social engineering attacks .
I have no idea how they are going to solve the problem now .
If you spend years teaching people to do things one way , you ca n't just go " uhm we fucked up , do it this way instead " and expect people to trust you.They taught users to be negligent about security , taunting it as a usability advantage ( Windows " just works " ) , and now they are trying to undo the damage without losing face .
" Good luck with that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is in a hell of their own making.
For years they have more or less taught users that:*The way to install software is to pop some keywords into a search engine, and then run an un-trusted executable.
*The normal installation procedure involves clicking "yes" or "ok" on loads of dialogue boxes without reading them.
*Each app has its own installation procedure and it is perfectly normal that you have to do things you normally would not in order to get thingsworking.That is only the tip of the iceberg of course.
Hiding file extensions, executing apps by double clicking the file, programs changing your system configuration without asking you ... Microsoft made it all seem normal, thereby opening the floodgates for all kinds of social engineering attacks.
I have no idea how they are going to solve the problem now.
If you spend years teaching people to do things one way, you can't just go "uhm we fucked up, do it this way instead" and expect people to trust you.They taught users to be negligent about security, taunting it as a usability advantage ( Windows "just works" ), and now they are trying to undo the damage without losing face.
"Good luck with that.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973082</id>
	<title>Re:Is this really surprising?</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1257265980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``once the virus is running on the PC, it's got free reign''</p><p>Isn't that something we should do something about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` once the virus is running on the PC , it 's got free reign''Is n't that something we should do something about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``once the virus is running on the PC, it's got free reign''Isn't that something we should do something about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968952</id>
	<title>NEWSFLASH!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A machine without AV is vulnerable to viruses!</p><p>News at 11!</p><p>Talk about a useless piece of FUD...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A machine without AV is vulnerable to viruses ! News at 11 ! Talk about a useless piece of FUD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A machine without AV is vulnerable to viruses!News at 11!Talk about a useless piece of FUD...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29982470</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a Select License agreement you could install 7 before the product hit store shelves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a Select License agreement you could install 7 before the product hit store shelves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a Select License agreement you could install 7 before the product hit store shelves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972388</id>
	<title>Only 8 out of 10?</title>
	<author>DieByWire</author>
	<datestamp>1257260400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what you get when you skip regression testing.</p><p>Give them time. They'll get the last two working again in the next service pack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what you get when you skip regression testing.Give them time .
They 'll get the last two working again in the next service pack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what you get when you skip regression testing.Give them time.
They'll get the last two working again in the next service pack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972856</id>
	<title>Jhon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257264000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>very well!! http://www.douerwan.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>very well ! !
http : //www.douerwan.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very well!!
http://www.douerwan.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973354</id>
	<title>Re:More data needed</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1257268320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You still have to click a button even if you're the administrator, though. Don't they have a secure software mode thingie to prevent malware from just clicking the button? (cf. other comments on this article)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You still have to click a button even if you 're the administrator , though .
Do n't they have a secure software mode thingie to prevent malware from just clicking the button ?
( cf. other comments on this article )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still have to click a button even if you're the administrator, though.
Don't they have a secure software mode thingie to prevent malware from just clicking the button?
(cf. other comments on this article)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970068</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Barloe</author>
	<datestamp>1257249360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please... go ahead and gain more market share... then all of this "Can't Get Viruses" banter with be a thing of the past. Go ahead... make yourselves a target.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please... go ahead and gain more market share... then all of this " Ca n't Get Viruses " banter with be a thing of the past .
Go ahead... make yourselves a target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please... go ahead and gain more market share... then all of this "Can't Get Viruses" banter with be a thing of the past.
Go ahead... make yourselves a target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969496</id>
	<title>Microsoft Security Essentials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.microsoft.com/Security\_Essentials/</p><p>Problem solved. I bet Microsoft would have loved to bundle this in, but Symantec, McAfee and the other A/V vendors would have screamed Anti-Competition!, but now they just complain about viruses running on windows 7.  Microsoft can't seem to win either way on this one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.microsoft.com/Security \ _Essentials/Problem solved .
I bet Microsoft would have loved to bundle this in , but Symantec , McAfee and the other A/V vendors would have screamed Anti-Competition ! , but now they just complain about viruses running on windows 7 .
Microsoft ca n't seem to win either way on this one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.microsoft.com/Security\_Essentials/Problem solved.
I bet Microsoft would have loved to bundle this in, but Symantec, McAfee and the other A/V vendors would have screamed Anti-Competition!, but now they just complain about viruses running on windows 7.
Microsoft can't seem to win either way on this one...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969894</id>
	<title>Re:Best anti-virus next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257248820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So...what's the best anti-virus software for Windows 7?</p></div><p>Disconnect it from the network.. You asked..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So...what 's the best anti-virus software for Windows 7 ? Disconnect it from the network.. You asked. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...what's the best anti-virus software for Windows 7?Disconnect it from the network.. You asked..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969234</id>
	<title>Big surprise</title>
	<author>FunkyOldD</author>
	<datestamp>1257246660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Antivirus software vendor has reached the conclusion that you still NEED antivirus software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Antivirus software vendor has reached the conclusion that you still NEED antivirus software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Antivirus software vendor has reached the conclusion that you still NEED antivirus software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969514</id>
	<title>Re:In Test, Kdawson Posted 10 out of 10 FUD Storie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In all fairness, he also distributes FUD about Macs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In all fairness , he also distributes FUD about Macs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all fairness, he also distributes FUD about Macs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968818</id>
	<title>In other exciting news...</title>
	<author>frist</author>
	<datestamp>1257245160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>New tests show that software written for Windows runs on Windows!

Copycat studies have also shown conclusively that software written for Macs run on Macs and software written for Linux runs on Linux!

More at 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New tests show that software written for Windows runs on Windows !
Copycat studies have also shown conclusively that software written for Macs run on Macs and software written for Linux runs on Linux !
More at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New tests show that software written for Windows runs on Windows!
Copycat studies have also shown conclusively that software written for Macs run on Macs and software written for Linux runs on Linux!
More at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969570</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257247920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, more than Linux.  Weird, hunh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , more than Linux .
Weird , hunh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, more than Linux.
Weird, hunh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970644</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1257251280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7."</i>
<br>
<br>
Or, alternately, DON'T INTENTIONALLY RUN VIRUSES ON YOUR COMPUTER.  Geeze.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7 .
" Or , alternately , DO N'T INTENTIONALLY RUN VIRUSES ON YOUR COMPUTER .
Geeze .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7.
"


Or, alternately, DON'T INTENTIONALLY RUN VIRUSES ON YOUR COMPUTER.
Geeze.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974674</id>
	<title>Re:Firewall?</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1257019380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Windows firewall nothing more than slightly annoying.</p></div></blockquote><p>Try exploiting an SMB2 vulnerability from another computer if the Windows firewall is turned on and in "Public" network mode.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows firewall nothing more than slightly annoying.Try exploiting an SMB2 vulnerability from another computer if the Windows firewall is turned on and in " Public " network mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows firewall nothing more than slightly annoying.Try exploiting an SMB2 vulnerability from another computer if the Windows firewall is turned on and in "Public" network mode.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968870</id>
	<title>Testing Methodology</title>
	<author>Chris453</author>
	<datestamp>1257245340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Were these run on an administrator account?  Also what does 'run' actually mean?  Does it mean that the viruses performed their full function or just that they were allowed to run but didn't cause any real damage to the OS?  I would be interested if the viruses could still cause OS damage with UAC enabled on a non admin account.  The article doesn't do a good job of answering any questions.  The articles goal seemed to be to grab headlines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were these run on an administrator account ?
Also what does 'run ' actually mean ?
Does it mean that the viruses performed their full function or just that they were allowed to run but did n't cause any real damage to the OS ?
I would be interested if the viruses could still cause OS damage with UAC enabled on a non admin account .
The article does n't do a good job of answering any questions .
The articles goal seemed to be to grab headlines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were these run on an administrator account?
Also what does 'run' actually mean?
Does it mean that the viruses performed their full function or just that they were allowed to run but didn't cause any real damage to the OS?
I would be interested if the viruses could still cause OS damage with UAC enabled on a non admin account.
The article doesn't do a good job of answering any questions.
The articles goal seemed to be to grab headlines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975604</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256985480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had the same problem before on vista, the trick is to right-click your text editor and "Run as Administrator" and then navigate to the file within the text editor and open it from within there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had the same problem before on vista , the trick is to right-click your text editor and " Run as Administrator " and then navigate to the file within the text editor and open it from within there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had the same problem before on vista, the trick is to right-click your text editor and "Run as Administrator" and then navigate to the file within the text editor and open it from within there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971302</id>
	<title>Re:Why blacklist instead of whitelist?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257253860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly what AppLocker is for.  You can define what you want machines to run and anything else will be disallowed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what AppLocker is for .
You can define what you want machines to run and anything else will be disallowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what AppLocker is for.
You can define what you want machines to run and anything else will be disallowed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987784</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256991480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.  I've been running the RTM since it became available in August, and the RC's were generally available in what, June?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
I 've been running the RTM since it became available in August , and the RC 's were generally available in what , June ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
I've been running the RTM since it became available in August, and the RC's were generally available in what, June?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974760</id>
	<title>32-bit vs 64-bit Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257020520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article has no information about whether the system was 32-bit or 64-bit. 64-bit uses Patchguard to protect the kernel, and mandatory driver signing that prevents unsigned drivers from being loaded. There should be a difference in the infection rate of 32-bit Windows 7 vs 64-bit Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article has no information about whether the system was 32-bit or 64-bit .
64-bit uses Patchguard to protect the kernel , and mandatory driver signing that prevents unsigned drivers from being loaded .
There should be a difference in the infection rate of 32-bit Windows 7 vs 64-bit Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article has no information about whether the system was 32-bit or 64-bit.
64-bit uses Patchguard to protect the kernel, and mandatory driver signing that prevents unsigned drivers from being loaded.
There should be a difference in the infection rate of 32-bit Windows 7 vs 64-bit Windows 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972482</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chance of a male contracting HIV from an HIV positive female partner is less than 10\%.  Even lower if he's circumsized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chance of a male contracting HIV from an HIV positive female partner is less than 10 \ % .
Even lower if he 's circumsized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chance of a male contracting HIV from an HIV positive female partner is less than 10\%.
Even lower if he's circumsized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968626</id>
	<title>Not News!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get.

Especially with the number of good free anti-virus programs available for Windows, there is no excuse not to have one either way.  I use Avast Home Edition.  It's free (just registration required), fast, and small-footprint.

Even if 9/10 viruses would be blocked by UAC, an anti-virus program that blocks the last one is worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who uses any computer ( including Mac AND Linux ) without anti-virus is asking for what they get .
Especially with the number of good free anti-virus programs available for Windows , there is no excuse not to have one either way .
I use Avast Home Edition .
It 's free ( just registration required ) , fast , and small-footprint .
Even if 9/10 viruses would be blocked by UAC , an anti-virus program that blocks the last one is worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get.
Especially with the number of good free anti-virus programs available for Windows, there is no excuse not to have one either way.
I use Avast Home Edition.
It's free (just registration required), fast, and small-footprint.
Even if 9/10 viruses would be blocked by UAC, an anti-virus program that blocks the last one is worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972094</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1257258360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're probably counting the free release candidate many were using.<br> <br>

Btw I am <b>very</b> dubious about an anti-virus company telling me I need to install anti-virus software. I'm guessing they actually ran the viruses on a Win7 machine and are reporting <em>"Holy shit, 8/10 of the viruses we ran.. ran."</em> In the same way someone might report <em>"Oh my gosh, on OS X when I rm -rf'ed my machine it actually let me do it. You better buy <b>iDumbassProtector 2010</b>"</em> <br>
Also if you want to run an anti-virus use <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/Security\_Essentials/" title="microsoft.com">Microsoft Security Essentials</a> [microsoft.com], no need to pay for Sophos or Norton or McAffee, they're all trash and it's a predatory industry which desperately needs to die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're probably counting the free release candidate many were using .
Btw I am very dubious about an anti-virus company telling me I need to install anti-virus software .
I 'm guessing they actually ran the viruses on a Win7 machine and are reporting " Holy shit , 8/10 of the viruses we ran. .
ran. " In the same way someone might report " Oh my gosh , on OS X when I rm -rf'ed my machine it actually let me do it .
You better buy iDumbassProtector 2010 " Also if you want to run an anti-virus use Microsoft Security Essentials [ microsoft.com ] , no need to pay for Sophos or Norton or McAffee , they 're all trash and it 's a predatory industry which desperately needs to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're probably counting the free release candidate many were using.
Btw I am very dubious about an anti-virus company telling me I need to install anti-virus software.
I'm guessing they actually ran the viruses on a Win7 machine and are reporting "Holy shit, 8/10 of the viruses we ran..
ran." In the same way someone might report "Oh my gosh, on OS X when I rm -rf'ed my machine it actually let me do it.
You better buy iDumbassProtector 2010" 
Also if you want to run an anti-virus use Microsoft Security Essentials [microsoft.com], no need to pay for Sophos or Norton or McAffee, they're all trash and it's a predatory industry which desperately needs to die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</id>
	<title>Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Windows 7's market share<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1.9\% the day before launch</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share <b>before</b> launch?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 's market share ... 1.9 \ % the day before launch Windows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7's market share ... 1.9\% the day before launch

Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969842</id>
	<title>Glass half full</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257248700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We blocked 20\%! Woo Hoo! Next stop Windows 8 and 21\%!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We blocked 20 \ % !
Woo Hoo !
Next stop Windows 8 and 21 \ % !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We blocked 20\%!
Woo Hoo!
Next stop Windows 8 and 21\%!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29982388</id>
	<title>Same thing happened on Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I made a virus that would delete some files, I ran it and it deleted those files!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I made a virus that would delete some files , I ran it and it deleted those files !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made a virus that would delete some files, I ran it and it deleted those files!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29986676</id>
	<title>Only 80\%?</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1256987160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only 8 out of 10 programs designed to run on Windows OS worked? What was wrong with the other two?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 8 out of 10 programs designed to run on Windows OS worked ?
What was wrong with the other two ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 8 out of 10 programs designed to run on Windows OS worked?
What was wrong with the other two?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014</id>
	<title>Is this really surprising?</title>
	<author>Sc4Freak</author>
	<datestamp>1257245880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Viruses use security holes to get onto PCs in the first place - once the virus is running on the PC, it's got free reign. There can be absolutely no security vulnerabilities on a system and the virus usually still do what it wants if it's preloaded onto the system.</p><p>You don't need administrative privileges to do many things that viruses want to do (eg. send mail, monitor keypresses). They ran the test by loading the virus onto the machine, then letting it execute. That doesn't demonstrate that the system is full of holes - it demonstrates that the system is very good at backwards compatibility!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Viruses use security holes to get onto PCs in the first place - once the virus is running on the PC , it 's got free reign .
There can be absolutely no security vulnerabilities on a system and the virus usually still do what it wants if it 's preloaded onto the system.You do n't need administrative privileges to do many things that viruses want to do ( eg .
send mail , monitor keypresses ) .
They ran the test by loading the virus onto the machine , then letting it execute .
That does n't demonstrate that the system is full of holes - it demonstrates that the system is very good at backwards compatibility !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viruses use security holes to get onto PCs in the first place - once the virus is running on the PC, it's got free reign.
There can be absolutely no security vulnerabilities on a system and the virus usually still do what it wants if it's preloaded onto the system.You don't need administrative privileges to do many things that viruses want to do (eg.
send mail, monitor keypresses).
They ran the test by loading the virus onto the machine, then letting it execute.
That doesn't demonstrate that the system is full of holes - it demonstrates that the system is very good at backwards compatibility!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974430</id>
	<title>I cannot understand ...</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1257276360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is that stupid to pay MORE for a product to be compatible with earlier releases...</p><p>Home - Pro</p><p>What's up with that? To be able to use your old XP applications, you'll have to pay (lots) more!</p><p>I'll stick to os X for now on and if this PC would natively support os X, windows would already be history!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is that stupid to pay MORE for a product to be compatible with earlier releases...Home - ProWhat 's up with that ?
To be able to use your old XP applications , you 'll have to pay ( lots ) more ! I 'll stick to os X for now on and if this PC would natively support os X , windows would already be history !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is that stupid to pay MORE for a product to be compatible with earlier releases...Home - ProWhat's up with that?
To be able to use your old XP applications, you'll have to pay (lots) more!I'll stick to os X for now on and if this PC would natively support os X, windows would already be history!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972870</id>
	<title>But the valuable stuff isn't Administrator-only</title>
	<author>Myria</author>
	<datestamp>1257264180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You log into your bank account using an unprivileged process.  Firefox doesn't run with Administrator access.  This means that a non-Administrator Trojan can steal your bank account password without so much as a UAC dialog coming up.</p><p>Making your machine a zombie in a botnet doesn't require Administrator access either, assuming that the back door listens on a port higher than 1023.</p><p>Sure, it might be easier to clean, assuming you know it's there.  Most of the viruses I run into that are stealing our customers' credentials aren't even detected by the anti-virus companies yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You log into your bank account using an unprivileged process .
Firefox does n't run with Administrator access .
This means that a non-Administrator Trojan can steal your bank account password without so much as a UAC dialog coming up.Making your machine a zombie in a botnet does n't require Administrator access either , assuming that the back door listens on a port higher than 1023.Sure , it might be easier to clean , assuming you know it 's there .
Most of the viruses I run into that are stealing our customers ' credentials are n't even detected by the anti-virus companies yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You log into your bank account using an unprivileged process.
Firefox doesn't run with Administrator access.
This means that a non-Administrator Trojan can steal your bank account password without so much as a UAC dialog coming up.Making your machine a zombie in a botnet doesn't require Administrator access either, assuming that the back door listens on a port higher than 1023.Sure, it might be easier to clean, assuming you know it's there.
Most of the viruses I run into that are stealing our customers' credentials aren't even detected by the anti-virus companies yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969362</id>
	<title>8 out of 10, and the other two ...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1257247200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... couldn't find sufficient system resources to run?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... could n't find sufficient system resources to run ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... couldn't find sufficient system resources to run?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971560</id>
	<title>Re:Why blacklist instead of whitelist?</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1257255060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The argument say that the same should be true of programs - instead of trying to keep an up-to-the-second list of all 5 trillion viruses in the world, why not keep a list of the 50 programs that SHOULD be allowed to run, and assume that anything else is bad?</i>
</p><p>Because it is impossible for the OS vendor to do this effectively, and as soon as the user can do it, the potential security gains disappear (the "dancing bunnies" problem).
</p><p> <i>This makes logical sense to me, but (apparently) it isn't done. I assume it's much harder than it sounds. Can anyone explain this?</i>
</p><p>Technically, it's trivial to implement - but the problems with viruses (largely) aren't technical, they're social.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument say that the same should be true of programs - instead of trying to keep an up-to-the-second list of all 5 trillion viruses in the world , why not keep a list of the 50 programs that SHOULD be allowed to run , and assume that anything else is bad ?
Because it is impossible for the OS vendor to do this effectively , and as soon as the user can do it , the potential security gains disappear ( the " dancing bunnies " problem ) .
This makes logical sense to me , but ( apparently ) it is n't done .
I assume it 's much harder than it sounds .
Can anyone explain this ?
Technically , it 's trivial to implement - but the problems with viruses ( largely ) are n't technical , they 're social .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The argument say that the same should be true of programs - instead of trying to keep an up-to-the-second list of all 5 trillion viruses in the world, why not keep a list of the 50 programs that SHOULD be allowed to run, and assume that anything else is bad?
Because it is impossible for the OS vendor to do this effectively, and as soon as the user can do it, the potential security gains disappear (the "dancing bunnies" problem).
This makes logical sense to me, but (apparently) it isn't done.
I assume it's much harder than it sounds.
Can anyone explain this?
Technically, it's trivial to implement - but the problems with viruses (largely) aren't technical, they're social.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29980870</id>
	<title>Re:Testing Methodology</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1257013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Run" probably the double standard version of it. If the user downloads an exe from a pr0n site then runs it, it's Window's fault. If a Linux user downloads a script off the web that has "rm -rf", it's the user's fault.</p><p>What this "test" comes down to is they ran some virii/malware and they found out some malware tries to run as admin and some malware only runs as the current user. OMG! I told Windows to run a program and it listened to me!! Shame shame MS. Next time make Windows not listen to me because I'm too stupid to use a computer.</p><p>Car analogy: Your car should know when you hit the gas, you really should have hit the breaks and the car should have automatically slammed on the breaks for you when hit the gas because you're too stupid to operate a car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Run " probably the double standard version of it .
If the user downloads an exe from a pr0n site then runs it , it 's Window 's fault .
If a Linux user downloads a script off the web that has " rm -rf " , it 's the user 's fault.What this " test " comes down to is they ran some virii/malware and they found out some malware tries to run as admin and some malware only runs as the current user .
OMG ! I told Windows to run a program and it listened to me ! !
Shame shame MS. Next time make Windows not listen to me because I 'm too stupid to use a computer.Car analogy : Your car should know when you hit the gas , you really should have hit the breaks and the car should have automatically slammed on the breaks for you when hit the gas because you 're too stupid to operate a car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Run" probably the double standard version of it.
If the user downloads an exe from a pr0n site then runs it, it's Window's fault.
If a Linux user downloads a script off the web that has "rm -rf", it's the user's fault.What this "test" comes down to is they ran some virii/malware and they found out some malware tries to run as admin and some malware only runs as the current user.
OMG! I told Windows to run a program and it listened to me!!
Shame shame MS. Next time make Windows not listen to me because I'm too stupid to use a computer.Car analogy: Your car should know when you hit the gas, you really should have hit the breaks and the car should have automatically slammed on the breaks for you when hit the gas because you're too stupid to operate a car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969180</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1257246480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Windows 7's market share<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1.9\% the day before launch</p></div></blockquote><p>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share <b>before</b> launch?</p></div><p>You and the dude who wasted a mod-point on your post missed several months of news about Windows 7 and its free public beta.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 's market share ... 1.9 \ % the day before launchWindows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ? You and the dude who wasted a mod-point on your post missed several months of news about Windows 7 and its free public beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7's market share ... 1.9\% the day before launchWindows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?You and the dude who wasted a mod-point on your post missed several months of news about Windows 7 and its free public beta.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973062</id>
	<title>In other news.  THE SKY IS BLUE!  And water's WET!</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1257265860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, this is a "well fucking <b>DUH!</b>" moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , this is a " well fucking DUH !
" moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, this is a "well fucking DUH!
" moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972272</id>
	<title>Re:In other exciting news...</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1257259500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...software written for Macs...</i></p><p>You lost me here.  Is there a Wikipedia entry you could point to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...software written for Macs...You lost me here .
Is there a Wikipedia entry you could point to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...software written for Macs...You lost me here.
Is there a Wikipedia entry you could point to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973436</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point of the article</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1257269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure.</p></div><p>Yes it is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user's document folders. This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity, thus not triggering UAC. This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it's level of security.</p></div><p>Yes it would. It indicates that the OS is not doing a good enough job of sandboxing applications from one another and the system.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> This is no different from any other platform, running as admin or not, if you run untrusted code, it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.</p></div><p>That's not true at all. SELinux, for example, sandboxes all applications and limits them to a subset of activities by default. Windows, contains greater granularity than simply user account level privileges  and part of UAC does provide greater granularity of security, just not enabled by default in Win7.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC *is* virus protection. Microsoft doesn't market it as virus protection, and people shouldn't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running.</p></div><p>MS absolutely markets UAC as a way to stop viruses. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure.Yes it is.I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user 's document folders .
This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity , thus not triggering UAC .
This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it 's level of security.Yes it would .
It indicates that the OS is not doing a good enough job of sandboxing applications from one another and the system .
This is no different from any other platform , running as admin or not , if you run untrusted code , it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.That 's not true at all .
SELinux , for example , sandboxes all applications and limits them to a subset of activities by default .
Windows , contains greater granularity than simply user account level privileges and part of UAC does provide greater granularity of security , just not enabled by default in Win7.The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC * is * virus protection .
Microsoft does n't market it as virus protection , and people should n't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running.MS absolutely markets UAC as a way to stop viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure.Yes it is.I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user's document folders.
This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity, thus not triggering UAC.
This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it's level of security.Yes it would.
It indicates that the OS is not doing a good enough job of sandboxing applications from one another and the system.
This is no different from any other platform, running as admin or not, if you run untrusted code, it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.That's not true at all.
SELinux, for example, sandboxes all applications and limits them to a subset of activities by default.
Windows, contains greater granularity than simply user account level privileges  and part of UAC does provide greater granularity of security, just not enabled by default in Win7.The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC *is* virus protection.
Microsoft doesn't market it as virus protection, and people shouldn't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running.MS absolutely markets UAC as a way to stop viruses. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972354</id>
	<title>the apple ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new Apple ad is starting to make more sense to me now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new Apple ad is starting to make more sense to me now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new Apple ad is starting to make more sense to me now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974168</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>MaxVT</author>
	<datestamp>1257274020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RTM was leaked about two months before launch, as I remember... I guess some users couldn't wait for an upgrade<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RTM was leaked about two months before launch , as I remember... I guess some users could n't wait for an upgrade : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RTM was leaked about two months before launch, as I remember... I guess some users couldn't wait for an upgrade :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976086</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256990520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who moded parent informative?</p><p>He did everything wrong. Launch notepad with administrative privileges (i.e. right click, Run as administrator), open 'hosts' (not 'Host') file, edit, save, close. Problem solved...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who moded parent informative ? He did everything wrong .
Launch notepad with administrative privileges ( i.e .
right click , Run as administrator ) , open 'hosts ' ( not 'Host ' ) file , edit , save , close .
Problem solved.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who moded parent informative?He did everything wrong.
Launch notepad with administrative privileges (i.e.
right click, Run as administrator), open 'hosts' (not 'Host') file, edit, save, close.
Problem solved...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29985862</id>
	<title>Re:Firewall?</title>
	<author>because321</author>
	<datestamp>1256984460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All of this is essentially correct from my experience.  If your computer is running in guest mode, or even normal user mode, the amount of damage a worm, or virus can do to your computer is virtually nill unless you count loss/corruption of profile data.  That's essentially all the virus will have access to change.  If it doesn't have permissions to do damage on the target system, it can't do that damage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of this is essentially correct from my experience .
If your computer is running in guest mode , or even normal user mode , the amount of damage a worm , or virus can do to your computer is virtually nill unless you count loss/corruption of profile data .
That 's essentially all the virus will have access to change .
If it does n't have permissions to do damage on the target system , it ca n't do that damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of this is essentially correct from my experience.
If your computer is running in guest mode, or even normal user mode, the amount of damage a worm, or virus can do to your computer is virtually nill unless you count loss/corruption of profile data.
That's essentially all the virus will have access to change.
If it doesn't have permissions to do damage on the target system, it can't do that damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969046</id>
	<title>Re:X64?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In TFA the note on one of the viruses that didn't run states "Not Win32". I took that to mean that they were using the 64-bit version of Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In TFA the note on one of the viruses that did n't run states " Not Win32 " .
I took that to mean that they were using the 64-bit version of Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In TFA the note on one of the viruses that didn't run states "Not Win32".
I took that to mean that they were using the 64-bit version of Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968744</id>
	<title>Old song</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically what they're saying is that you should STILL just get a Mac.</p><p>Just like the recent Apple ad,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically what they 're saying is that you should STILL just get a Mac.Just like the recent Apple ad,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically what they're saying is that you should STILL just get a Mac.Just like the recent Apple ad,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969314</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1257246960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And they say the pirate bay was good for nothing. . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they say the pirate bay was good for nothing .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they say the pirate bay was good for nothing.
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971378</id>
	<title>Piracy really is rampant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But dont forget BillG.'s mantra: we get them hooked and then when theyre addicted, well collect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But dont forget BillG .
's mantra : we get them hooked and then when theyre addicted , well collect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But dont forget BillG.
's mantra: we get them hooked and then when theyre addicted, well collect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971626</id>
	<title>Re:In other exciting news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257255480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got linux software to run on linux?!?!?</p><p>HOW?!?!?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got linux software to run on linux ? ! ? ! ? HOW ? ! ? ! ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got linux software to run on linux?!?!?HOW?!?!?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969300</id>
	<title>It depends on how you read the article...</title>
	<author>Last\_Available\_Usern</author>
	<datestamp>1257246900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
It could also just as easily read:

"Two out of every ten virus writers deploy their work without testing it first."</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could also just as easily read : " Two out of every ten virus writers deploy their work without testing it first .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It could also just as easily read:

"Two out of every ten virus writers deploy their work without testing it first.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968664</id>
	<title>No shit!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could have at least tested it with Security Essentials . . . it's freely available to Windows users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could have at least tested it with Security Essentials .
. .
it 's freely available to Windows users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could have at least tested it with Security Essentials .
. .
it's freely available to Windows users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977722</id>
	<title>Re:In other exciting news...</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1257002700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In even more exciting news, your post has no relevance to the original post!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In even more exciting news , your post has no relevance to the original post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In even more exciting news, your post has no relevance to the original post!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973956</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>allan\_q</author>
	<datestamp>1257272340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just recently had to edit the Host file. (Local DNS file).
Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.</p></div><p>You need to elevate the privilege of your editor. If you're using Notepad, right-click and select "Run as administrator". It now has the rights to edit and save the Hosts file. </p><p> What's interesting is that under this elevated privilege, you won't be able to drag-and-drop a file from lower privilege level processes (e.g. Windows Explorer).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just recently had to edit the Host file .
( Local DNS file ) .
Could not save it because of UAC , and did n't get a UAC prompt either , had to give up and disable UAC first.You need to elevate the privilege of your editor .
If you 're using Notepad , right-click and select " Run as administrator " .
It now has the rights to edit and save the Hosts file .
What 's interesting is that under this elevated privilege , you wo n't be able to drag-and-drop a file from lower privilege level processes ( e.g .
Windows Explorer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just recently had to edit the Host file.
(Local DNS file).
Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.You need to elevate the privilege of your editor.
If you're using Notepad, right-click and select "Run as administrator".
It now has the rights to edit and save the Hosts file.
What's interesting is that under this elevated privilege, you won't be able to drag-and-drop a file from lower privilege level processes (e.g.
Windows Explorer).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969880</id>
	<title>Re:NEWSFLASH!</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1257248760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A machine without AV is vulnerable to viruses!</p><p>News at 11!</p><p>Talk about a useless piece of FUD...</p></div><p>My Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, and OpenBSD machines don't run antivirus software. Yet they have never had a virus.</p><p>It's not the 'machine' that gets the virus, it's the badly written operating system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A machine without AV is vulnerable to viruses ! News at 11 ! Talk about a useless piece of FUD...My Linux , Solaris , HP-UX , and OpenBSD machines do n't run antivirus software .
Yet they have never had a virus.It 's not the 'machine ' that gets the virus , it 's the badly written operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A machine without AV is vulnerable to viruses!News at 11!Talk about a useless piece of FUD...My Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, and OpenBSD machines don't run antivirus software.
Yet they have never had a virus.It's not the 'machine' that gets the virus, it's the badly written operating system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974574</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because all the Mac viruses do are sit there and look shiny, without actually doing anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because all the Mac viruses do are sit there and look shiny , without actually doing anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because all the Mac viruses do are sit there and look shiny, without actually doing anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970450</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257250620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I realize that this is a controlled test, but why shouldn't it be standard procedure to install AVG on any machine with a fresh install of Windows? It's like they're implying that it doesn't happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize that this is a controlled test , but why should n't it be standard procedure to install AVG on any machine with a fresh install of Windows ?
It 's like they 're implying that it does n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize that this is a controlled test, but why shouldn't it be standard procedure to install AVG on any machine with a fresh install of Windows?
It's like they're implying that it doesn't happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969344</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous counting</title>
	<author>windex82</author>
	<datestamp>1257247080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just had really good luck with 7 (x64) and some old software today</p><p>SO in case anyone is wondering Ultra Viewer IV works in 7, While not all that old, EFI's Color Burst software also runs, I am assuming it rips OK as well.</p><p>7 downloads and installs hasp drivers when the usb keys are attached, was pretty nice being able to skip that install.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had really good luck with 7 ( x64 ) and some old software todaySO in case anyone is wondering Ultra Viewer IV works in 7 , While not all that old , EFI 's Color Burst software also runs , I am assuming it rips OK as well.7 downloads and installs hasp drivers when the usb keys are attached , was pretty nice being able to skip that install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had really good luck with 7 (x64) and some old software todaySO in case anyone is wondering Ultra Viewer IV works in 7, While not all that old, EFI's Color Burst software also runs, I am assuming it rips OK as well.7 downloads and installs hasp drivers when the usb keys are attached, was pretty nice being able to skip that install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968750</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1257244980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Businesses with volume license subscriptions had access to Win7 before it was publicly launched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses with volume license subscriptions had access to Win7 before it was publicly launched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Businesses with volume license subscriptions had access to Win7 before it was publicly launched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977676</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257002520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just recently had to edit the Host file. (Local DNS file).<br>Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.</p></div><p>FYI to edit the host file you need to run your editor (e.g. notepad) as admin.  You can simply right-click notepad and "run as admin".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just recently had to edit the Host file .
( Local DNS file ) .Could not save it because of UAC , and did n't get a UAC prompt either , had to give up and disable UAC first.FYI to edit the host file you need to run your editor ( e.g .
notepad ) as admin .
You can simply right-click notepad and " run as admin " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just recently had to edit the Host file.
(Local DNS file).Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.FYI to edit the host file you need to run your editor (e.g.
notepad) as admin.
You can simply right-click notepad and "run as admin".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974718</id>
	<title>Blame</title>
	<author>Osmosis\_Garett</author>
	<datestamp>1257019980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you can thank the antivirus companies for this one.  Were microsoft to include enough tools and antivirus with their operating systems, suddenly all antivirus makers would be crying foul and shouting monopoly and the like, as their markets would suddenly dry up.  It happened in the past when MS was pushing windows defender and trying to integrate it deep into their OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you can thank the antivirus companies for this one .
Were microsoft to include enough tools and antivirus with their operating systems , suddenly all antivirus makers would be crying foul and shouting monopoly and the like , as their markets would suddenly dry up .
It happened in the past when MS was pushing windows defender and trying to integrate it deep into their OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you can thank the antivirus companies for this one.
Were microsoft to include enough tools and antivirus with their operating systems, suddenly all antivirus makers would be crying foul and shouting monopoly and the like, as their markets would suddenly dry up.
It happened in the past when MS was pushing windows defender and trying to integrate it deep into their OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973556</id>
	<title>Re:The newfie virus?</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1257270180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you an important word in your sentence up there. <br>
&nbsp; <br>And Gentoo users would not understand.....<br>
&nbsp; <br>apoc.famine@lugburz:~$sudo rm -rf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/<br>sudo: command not found<br>apoc.famine@lugburz:~$emerge sudo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you an important word in your sentence up there .
  And Gentoo users would not understand.... .   apoc.famine @ lugburz : ~ $ sudo rm -rf /sudo : command not foundapoc.famine @ lugburz : ~ $ emerge sudo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you an important word in your sentence up there.
  And Gentoo users would not understand.....
  apoc.famine@lugburz:~$sudo rm -rf /sudo: command not foundapoc.famine@lugburz:~$emerge sudo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972506</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257261180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Next they'll be telling you that you are a thoroughbred troglodyte for running that system and worse: trying to dodge your situation by making up pretty pathetic metahphors. And they'll be right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Next they 'll be telling you that you are a thoroughbred troglodyte for running that system and worse : trying to dodge your situation by making up pretty pathetic metahphors .
And they 'll be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Next they'll be telling you that you are a thoroughbred troglodyte for running that system and worse: trying to dodge your situation by making up pretty pathetic metahphors.
And they'll be right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987906</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256992020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, duh... there was a great hype about Win7RC and many people installed it, and me personally thinks it was before the "official" launch.<br>or maybe he meant lunch...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , duh... there was a great hype about Win7RC and many people installed it , and me personally thinks it was before the " official " launch.or maybe he meant lunch... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, duh... there was a great hype about Win7RC and many people installed it, and me personally thinks it was before the "official" launch.or maybe he meant lunch...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971940</id>
	<title>My cleaning bleach only kills 98\% of germs....</title>
	<author>Tomsk70</author>
	<datestamp>1257257160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....so since I keep getting infected, I guess the bleach must be rubbish<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>I'm also puzzled as to how everyone is suddenly taking an AV company's reports at face value - or does everyone suddenly agree with Symantec that MS were being terribly unfair when they locked down the kernel?</p><p>It's also worth noting that MS provide a free AV tool which is, by the accounts I've read, quite good....not that anyone's going to take any notice when there's another opportunity to plug Linux - plugs which will be ignored by nearly everyone not already using it,, as usual - if you'd all made more of a fuss of the alternatives to wIndows when it mattered - e.g. when O/S 2 had a chance, it might have made a difference<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....so since I keep getting infected , I guess the bleach must be rubbish : - ) I 'm also puzzled as to how everyone is suddenly taking an AV company 's reports at face value - or does everyone suddenly agree with Symantec that MS were being terribly unfair when they locked down the kernel ? It 's also worth noting that MS provide a free AV tool which is , by the accounts I 've read , quite good....not that anyone 's going to take any notice when there 's another opportunity to plug Linux - plugs which will be ignored by nearly everyone not already using it, , as usual - if you 'd all made more of a fuss of the alternatives to wIndows when it mattered - e.g .
when O/S 2 had a chance , it might have made a difference : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....so since I keep getting infected, I guess the bleach must be rubbish :-)I'm also puzzled as to how everyone is suddenly taking an AV company's reports at face value - or does everyone suddenly agree with Symantec that MS were being terribly unfair when they locked down the kernel?It's also worth noting that MS provide a free AV tool which is, by the accounts I've read, quite good....not that anyone's going to take any notice when there's another opportunity to plug Linux - plugs which will be ignored by nearly everyone not already using it,, as usual - if you'd all made more of a fuss of the alternatives to wIndows when it mattered - e.g.
when O/S 2 had a chance, it might have made a difference :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.30016362</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257627420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?</p></div><p>Beta users and bittorrent downloaders.
</p><p>
Given the Vista hate, I'm actually surprised it didn't have a higher market share than 1.9\% on launch day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ? Beta users and bittorrent downloaders .
Given the Vista hate , I 'm actually surprised it did n't have a higher market share than 1.9 \ % on launch day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?Beta users and bittorrent downloaders.
Given the Vista hate, I'm actually surprised it didn't have a higher market share than 1.9\% on launch day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972876</id>
	<title>Is this a joke topic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They copy 10 programs to a PC and 8 of them run? No kidding...</p><p>Prevention is the best cure - preventing them from getting on the machine in the first place.</p><p>This article is so stupid its mindboggling. Anyone could write a new virus and run in on any operating system and it would run.... What do they want a whitelist of every executable in the world that has been confirmed not be a virus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They copy 10 programs to a PC and 8 of them run ?
No kidding...Prevention is the best cure - preventing them from getting on the machine in the first place.This article is so stupid its mindboggling .
Anyone could write a new virus and run in on any operating system and it would run.... What do they want a whitelist of every executable in the world that has been confirmed not be a virus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They copy 10 programs to a PC and 8 of them run?
No kidding...Prevention is the best cure - preventing them from getting on the machine in the first place.This article is so stupid its mindboggling.
Anyone could write a new virus and run in on any operating system and it would run.... What do they want a whitelist of every executable in the world that has been confirmed not be a virus?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540</id>
	<title>Re:Firewall?</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1257250920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought it was common knowledge that viruses dont need admin to do a large number of things?  I could swear this comes up every time arguments about whether linux can get viruses start.  Viruses dont need admin to auto run (users can have per-user settings on that), send packets, send email, launch popups, install BHOs, install firefox addons, read files, etc etc etc.<br> <br>

The things "non-admin" stops are the important things, like installing drivers, installing rootkits, installing LSPs, hooking system files, patching system files, etc etc etc.  THOSE are all that matters.  If you have a computer set up for the family to use with a non admin account (on XP), the point isnt that you think itll prevent them from getting crapware, its that the crapware wont affect other parts of the system (hopefully).<br> <br>

Its also a hell of a lot easier to remove viruses installed with non-admin priveleges-- the difference is night and day.  Non admin viruses usually just stick a single entry (maybe 2) in the startup list, and SysInternals Autoruns or HijackThis cleans that in about 15 seconds.  Admin-installed viruses tend to take on the order of 15-30 minutes of manual removal, or booting into linux, or running combofix, or some combination of the 3, and if you screw up once and miss a file the whole thing reinstalls.<br> <br>

FWIW Im an IT consultant (part of my job is helpdesk) and I have yet to deal with a nasty virus / rootkit on Vista.  XP on the other hand, I've seen viruses that took 45 minutes to remove even with tools like SDFix, the SysInternals suite, and launching ubuntu to manually remove the infected DLLs sorting by date.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was common knowledge that viruses dont need admin to do a large number of things ?
I could swear this comes up every time arguments about whether linux can get viruses start .
Viruses dont need admin to auto run ( users can have per-user settings on that ) , send packets , send email , launch popups , install BHOs , install firefox addons , read files , etc etc etc .
The things " non-admin " stops are the important things , like installing drivers , installing rootkits , installing LSPs , hooking system files , patching system files , etc etc etc .
THOSE are all that matters .
If you have a computer set up for the family to use with a non admin account ( on XP ) , the point isnt that you think itll prevent them from getting crapware , its that the crapware wont affect other parts of the system ( hopefully ) .
Its also a hell of a lot easier to remove viruses installed with non-admin priveleges-- the difference is night and day .
Non admin viruses usually just stick a single entry ( maybe 2 ) in the startup list , and SysInternals Autoruns or HijackThis cleans that in about 15 seconds .
Admin-installed viruses tend to take on the order of 15-30 minutes of manual removal , or booting into linux , or running combofix , or some combination of the 3 , and if you screw up once and miss a file the whole thing reinstalls .
FWIW Im an IT consultant ( part of my job is helpdesk ) and I have yet to deal with a nasty virus / rootkit on Vista .
XP on the other hand , I 've seen viruses that took 45 minutes to remove even with tools like SDFix , the SysInternals suite , and launching ubuntu to manually remove the infected DLLs sorting by date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was common knowledge that viruses dont need admin to do a large number of things?
I could swear this comes up every time arguments about whether linux can get viruses start.
Viruses dont need admin to auto run (users can have per-user settings on that), send packets, send email, launch popups, install BHOs, install firefox addons, read files, etc etc etc.
The things "non-admin" stops are the important things, like installing drivers, installing rootkits, installing LSPs, hooking system files, patching system files, etc etc etc.
THOSE are all that matters.
If you have a computer set up for the family to use with a non admin account (on XP), the point isnt that you think itll prevent them from getting crapware, its that the crapware wont affect other parts of the system (hopefully).
Its also a hell of a lot easier to remove viruses installed with non-admin priveleges-- the difference is night and day.
Non admin viruses usually just stick a single entry (maybe 2) in the startup list, and SysInternals Autoruns or HijackThis cleans that in about 15 seconds.
Admin-installed viruses tend to take on the order of 15-30 minutes of manual removal, or booting into linux, or running combofix, or some combination of the 3, and if you screw up once and miss a file the whole thing reinstalls.
FWIW Im an IT consultant (part of my job is helpdesk) and I have yet to deal with a nasty virus / rootkit on Vista.
XP on the other hand, I've seen viruses that took 45 minutes to remove even with tools like SDFix, the SysInternals suite, and launching ubuntu to manually remove the infected DLLs sorting by date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972942</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1257264780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>beta/rc were out before the launch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>beta/rc were out before the launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>beta/rc were out before the launch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974660</id>
	<title>Re:Firewall?</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1257019320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, as a system administrator the only thing that cleans malware infections is pressing F12 during boot, and then reapply a clean base image. Deleting the users profile, if roaming, is also important.</p><p>Doing anything else means you're an unprofessional hack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , as a system administrator the only thing that cleans malware infections is pressing F12 during boot , and then reapply a clean base image .
Deleting the users profile , if roaming , is also important.Doing anything else means you 're an unprofessional hack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, as a system administrator the only thing that cleans malware infections is pressing F12 during boot, and then reapply a clean base image.
Deleting the users profile, if roaming, is also important.Doing anything else means you're an unprofessional hack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974358</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>FirstTimeCaller</author>
	<datestamp>1257275640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just recently had to edit the Host file. (Local DNS file).
Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.</p></div></blockquote><p>No need to do that.  Right click on the editor program of choice and choose Run As Administrator.  You can now edit (and save!) your hosts file.
</p><p>If this is something you do often you can create a shortcut (click Advanced on the Shortcut tab to set run as admin).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just recently had to edit the Host file .
( Local DNS file ) .
Could not save it because of UAC , and did n't get a UAC prompt either , had to give up and disable UAC first.No need to do that .
Right click on the editor program of choice and choose Run As Administrator .
You can now edit ( and save !
) your hosts file .
If this is something you do often you can create a shortcut ( click Advanced on the Shortcut tab to set run as admin ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just recently had to edit the Host file.
(Local DNS file).
Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.No need to do that.
Right click on the editor program of choice and choose Run As Administrator.
You can now edit (and save!
) your hosts file.
If this is something you do often you can create a shortcut (click Advanced on the Shortcut tab to set run as admin).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974344</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to open notepad as Administor to save files that need admin access to modify.  Just right click the notepad shortcut and there is an option to do that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Just recently had to edit the Host file. (Local DNS file).<br>Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to open notepad as Administor to save files that need admin access to modify .
Just right click the notepad shortcut and there is an option to do that.Just recently had to edit the Host file .
( Local DNS file ) .Could not save it because of UAC , and did n't get a UAC prompt either , had to give up and disable UAC first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to open notepad as Administor to save files that need admin access to modify.
Just right click the notepad shortcut and there is an option to do that.Just recently had to edit the Host file.
(Local DNS file).Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29989726</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>ScreamerAZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257001560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah its the RC that a lot of people are running that expires in July of 2010.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah its the RC that a lot of people are running that expires in July of 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah its the RC that a lot of people are running that expires in July of 2010.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968798</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not. A random selection of a handful of my friends, probably 2 in 10 of them ran the windows 7 beta, and release candidate, and one even got a gold release through MSDN before the launch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not .
A random selection of a handful of my friends , probably 2 in 10 of them ran the windows 7 beta , and release candidate , and one even got a gold release through MSDN before the launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not.
A random selection of a handful of my friends, probably 2 in 10 of them ran the windows 7 beta, and release candidate, and one even got a gold release through MSDN before the launch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975698</id>
	<title>Re:Is this really surprising?</title>
	<author>dhavleak</author>
	<datestamp>1256986440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just kdawson posting FUD as usual. He's known to break into hives if he doesn't post some mindless anti-MS sensational BS once a week.

</p><p>But seriously -- looking back at some of the stuff he's posted -- he's got to be one of the most pathetic excuses for a nerd I've ever seen. I mean, some of this shit doesn't even pass the sniff test. I mean, consider these gems in addition to TFA:

</p><ul>
<li>http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/03/0015252/Windows-7-Compatible-PCs-Must-Be-64-bit -- in which kdawson is so stupid he doesn't realize that the windows compatible sticker is to be used on a device (mouse, keyboard, webcam, etc. etc. and this requirement means that <i>drivers</i> must be available in both 64-bit and 32-bit versions</li><li>http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/29/2250228/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Released-Rivals-Mock-It -- in which kdawson ludicrously decides that an AV-vendor that is <i>directly threatened</i> by the release of AV s/w from MS is a great source to refer to for information on said AV software.</li></ul><p>And that's just from the last time I happened to read slashdot. In 2 visits to the site, that's three rabid anti-MS stories with zero merit. Either kdawson is completely and utterly incompetent, or he's got a not-so-hidden agenda. Trouble is -- how do we get rid of this guy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just kdawson posting FUD as usual .
He 's known to break into hives if he does n't post some mindless anti-MS sensational BS once a week .
But seriously -- looking back at some of the stuff he 's posted -- he 's got to be one of the most pathetic excuses for a nerd I 've ever seen .
I mean , some of this shit does n't even pass the sniff test .
I mean , consider these gems in addition to TFA : http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/03/0015252/Windows-7-Compatible-PCs-Must-Be-64-bit -- in which kdawson is so stupid he does n't realize that the windows compatible sticker is to be used on a device ( mouse , keyboard , webcam , etc .
etc. and this requirement means that drivers must be available in both 64-bit and 32-bit versionshttp : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/29/2250228/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Released-Rivals-Mock-It -- in which kdawson ludicrously decides that an AV-vendor that is directly threatened by the release of AV s/w from MS is a great source to refer to for information on said AV software.And that 's just from the last time I happened to read slashdot .
In 2 visits to the site , that 's three rabid anti-MS stories with zero merit .
Either kdawson is completely and utterly incompetent , or he 's got a not-so-hidden agenda .
Trouble is -- how do we get rid of this guy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just kdawson posting FUD as usual.
He's known to break into hives if he doesn't post some mindless anti-MS sensational BS once a week.
But seriously -- looking back at some of the stuff he's posted -- he's got to be one of the most pathetic excuses for a nerd I've ever seen.
I mean, some of this shit doesn't even pass the sniff test.
I mean, consider these gems in addition to TFA:


http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/03/0015252/Windows-7-Compatible-PCs-Must-Be-64-bit -- in which kdawson is so stupid he doesn't realize that the windows compatible sticker is to be used on a device (mouse, keyboard, webcam, etc.
etc. and this requirement means that drivers must be available in both 64-bit and 32-bit versionshttp://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/29/2250228/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Released-Rivals-Mock-It -- in which kdawson ludicrously decides that an AV-vendor that is directly threatened by the release of AV s/w from MS is a great source to refer to for information on said AV software.And that's just from the last time I happened to read slashdot.
In 2 visits to the site, that's three rabid anti-MS stories with zero merit.
Either kdawson is completely and utterly incompetent, or he's got a not-so-hidden agenda.
Trouble is -- how do we get rid of this guy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973212</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257267180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could have simply run whatever editor you were using elevated instead of disabling UAC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have simply run whatever editor you were using elevated instead of disabling UAC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have simply run whatever editor you were using elevated instead of disabling UAC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974828</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Protip: Run your editor with administrator priveleges and then open the file. No need to disable UAC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Protip : Run your editor with administrator priveleges and then open the file .
No need to disable UAC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protip: Run your editor with administrator priveleges and then open the file.
No need to disable UAC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973484</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257269700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure what rock you've been living under. The RC and other pre-releases have been around and quite stable for a long time now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure what rock you 've been living under .
The RC and other pre-releases have been around and quite stable for a long time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure what rock you've been living under.
The RC and other pre-releases have been around and quite stable for a long time now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970650</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1257251340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well after a couple thousand years of evolution, yeah, I'd expect to see some human immunity to those diseases. Is that how long we're expected to wait for Redmond?</p><p>I mean, come on, these are old viruses that had to be known about before Win7 was released. What excuse could MS possibly have for making an operating system with as poor security performance as its predecessors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well after a couple thousand years of evolution , yeah , I 'd expect to see some human immunity to those diseases .
Is that how long we 're expected to wait for Redmond ? I mean , come on , these are old viruses that had to be known about before Win7 was released .
What excuse could MS possibly have for making an operating system with as poor security performance as its predecessors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well after a couple thousand years of evolution, yeah, I'd expect to see some human immunity to those diseases.
Is that how long we're expected to wait for Redmond?I mean, come on, these are old viruses that had to be known about before Win7 was released.
What excuse could MS possibly have for making an operating system with as poor security performance as its predecessors?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969000</id>
	<title>Most secure OS ev-ar</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1257245820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 won't have any of the security issues that plagued previous versions.

</p><p>You can trust me on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 wo n't have any of the security issues that plagued previous versions .
You can trust me on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 won't have any of the security issues that plagued previous versions.
You can trust me on that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.30004442</id>
	<title>Uzba</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257511560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a test without AV<br>While, the Windows7's maintenance center recommends users to install AV software immediately after installation</p><p>Regarding the AUC, it also has a preventive role against bad manip for Beginners</p><p>Does Sophos need this kind of testing to earn money?</p><p>Furhtemore here is a link from the very serious Computerworld.com</p><p>http://blogs.computerworld.com/14933/microsoft\_xp\_is\_far\_more\_vulnerable\_than\_vista\_windows\_7</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a test without AVWhile , the Windows7 's maintenance center recommends users to install AV software immediately after installationRegarding the AUC , it also has a preventive role against bad manip for BeginnersDoes Sophos need this kind of testing to earn money ? Furhtemore here is a link from the very serious Computerworld.comhttp : //blogs.computerworld.com/14933/microsoft \ _xp \ _is \ _far \ _more \ _vulnerable \ _than \ _vista \ _windows \ _7</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a test without AVWhile, the Windows7's maintenance center recommends users to install AV software immediately after installationRegarding the AUC, it also has a preventive role against bad manip for BeginnersDoes Sophos need this kind of testing to earn money?Furhtemore here is a link from the very serious Computerworld.comhttp://blogs.computerworld.com/14933/microsoft\_xp\_is\_far\_more\_vulnerable\_than\_vista\_windows\_7</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969622</id>
	<title>Re:Why blacklist instead of whitelist?</title>
	<author>pipedwho</author>
	<datestamp>1257248100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, 50 apps chosen by Microsoft?</p><p>The concept of a whitelist is what application digital signatures are all about. Unfortunately, the process of getting an application signed is onerous enough that many small developers (and beta releases) simply don't bother. How many times have you clicked 'Yes' to a dialog box that said something to the effect of 'Application is untrusted. Continue anyway?'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , 50 apps chosen by Microsoft ? The concept of a whitelist is what application digital signatures are all about .
Unfortunately , the process of getting an application signed is onerous enough that many small developers ( and beta releases ) simply do n't bother .
How many times have you clicked 'Yes ' to a dialog box that said something to the effect of 'Application is untrusted .
Continue anyway ?
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, 50 apps chosen by Microsoft?The concept of a whitelist is what application digital signatures are all about.
Unfortunately, the process of getting an application signed is onerous enough that many small developers (and beta releases) simply don't bother.
How many times have you clicked 'Yes' to a dialog box that said something to the effect of 'Application is untrusted.
Continue anyway?
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646</id>
	<title>I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next you 'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive , syphilitic , sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968934</id>
	<title>More data needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did the account set up on Vista / Win7 have an administrator role, or was it a "normal user" account?  By not disclosing that, Wisniewski is only giving us half the story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the account set up on Vista / Win7 have an administrator role , or was it a " normal user " account ?
By not disclosing that , Wisniewski is only giving us half the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the account set up on Vista / Win7 have an administrator role, or was it a "normal user" account?
By not disclosing that, Wisniewski is only giving us half the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971982</id>
	<title>why is this news though?</title>
	<author>flappinbooger</author>
	<datestamp>1257257460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dont recall seeing MS claim win7 was virus proof...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont recall seeing MS claim win7 was virus proof.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont recall seeing MS claim win7 was virus proof...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973006</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run Notepad as admin, then open hosts with that instance of Notepad.</p><p>This is indeed a weakness in UAC, some apps don't seem to know how or when to ask it for elevation. I would vehemently disagree that disabling UAC should be the first thing you try, though!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run Notepad as admin , then open hosts with that instance of Notepad.This is indeed a weakness in UAC , some apps do n't seem to know how or when to ask it for elevation .
I would vehemently disagree that disabling UAC should be the first thing you try , though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run Notepad as admin, then open hosts with that instance of Notepad.This is indeed a weakness in UAC, some apps don't seem to know how or when to ask it for elevation.
I would vehemently disagree that disabling UAC should be the first thing you try, though!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972904</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257264420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you start your editor with elevated privileges?</p><p>The same way you have to sudo vi<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts<br>since vi<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts as a normal user wont let you save the file either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you start your editor with elevated privileges ? The same way you have to sudo vi /etc/hostssince vi /etc/hosts as a normal user wont let you save the file either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you start your editor with elevated privileges?The same way you have to sudo vi /etc/hostssince vi /etc/hosts as a normal user wont let you save the file either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29978094</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think W7 beat out world of warcraft as most prolific free beta for a paid product</p><p>where have you been for the last six months</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think W7 beat out world of warcraft as most prolific free beta for a paid productwhere have you been for the last six months</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think W7 beat out world of warcraft as most prolific free beta for a paid productwhere have you been for the last six months</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972680</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257262440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Windows 7's market share<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1.9\% the day before launch</p></div></blockquote><p>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share <b>before</b> launch?</p></div><p>The RC has been available since july and many businesses and education centres have had copies for a while (i've had professional installed for about 2 months)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 's market share ... 1.9 \ % the day before launchWindows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ? The RC has been available since july and many businesses and education centres have had copies for a while ( i 've had professional installed for about 2 months )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7's market share ... 1.9\% the day before launchWindows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?The RC has been available since july and many businesses and education centres have had copies for a while (i've had professional installed for about 2 months)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977552</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257001980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. or you could have done it the easy way and edited it with your favorite editor running with administrator privileges ("Run as administrator").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. or you could have done it the easy way and edited it with your favorite editor running with administrator privileges ( " Run as administrator " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. or you could have done it the easy way and edited it with your favorite editor running with administrator privileges ("Run as administrator").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975702</id>
	<title>Re:Firewall?</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1256986500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The firewall is absolutely enabled by default on Vista and Win7, and the Security Center monitor will scream at you quite persistently if you turn it off. By default it is set to auto-allow outbound connections, but inbound connections (the ones you usually worry about) are denied by default.</p><p>Editing these settings requires Admin privileges. Just because a keylogger can run as a non-admin doesn't mean it can change your system configuration (although it can, unless you've locked down the outbound firewall as well, send reports of your actions to an external server).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The firewall is absolutely enabled by default on Vista and Win7 , and the Security Center monitor will scream at you quite persistently if you turn it off .
By default it is set to auto-allow outbound connections , but inbound connections ( the ones you usually worry about ) are denied by default.Editing these settings requires Admin privileges .
Just because a keylogger can run as a non-admin does n't mean it can change your system configuration ( although it can , unless you 've locked down the outbound firewall as well , send reports of your actions to an external server ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The firewall is absolutely enabled by default on Vista and Win7, and the Security Center monitor will scream at you quite persistently if you turn it off.
By default it is set to auto-allow outbound connections, but inbound connections (the ones you usually worry about) are denied by default.Editing these settings requires Admin privileges.
Just because a keylogger can run as a non-admin doesn't mean it can change your system configuration (although it can, unless you've locked down the outbound firewall as well, send reports of your actions to an external server).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970046</id>
	<title>Re:In Test, Kdawson Posted 10 out of 10 FUD Storie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257249300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kdawson is not a real person, kdawson is a shill account for any of the editors to use when they want to post an obviously flamebait story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson is not a real person , kdawson is a shill account for any of the editors to use when they want to post an obviously flamebait story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson is not a real person, kdawson is a shill account for any of the editors to use when they want to post an obviously flamebait story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970536</id>
	<title>Re:Zero-day viruses aren't what they used to be...</title>
	<author>black3d</author>
	<datestamp>1257250920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be perfectly honest though, I did read the article and did realise my mistake about 2 minutes after posting it. It's a shame you can't take back bad posts.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be perfectly honest though , I did read the article and did realise my mistake about 2 minutes after posting it .
It 's a shame you ca n't take back bad posts .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be perfectly honest though, I did read the article and did realise my mistake about 2 minutes after posting it.
It's a shame you can't take back bad posts.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969296</id>
	<title>so what?</title>
	<author>anthonycamilleri</author>
	<datestamp>1257246900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>now microsoft offers 'security essentials' virus protection is essentially a plug-in to the system. testing it without the plugin is a bit like checking the robbery rate of a house with an installed alarm system which is turned off for the test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>now microsoft offers 'security essentials ' virus protection is essentially a plug-in to the system .
testing it without the plugin is a bit like checking the robbery rate of a house with an installed alarm system which is turned off for the test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now microsoft offers 'security essentials' virus protection is essentially a plug-in to the system.
testing it without the plugin is a bit like checking the robbery rate of a house with an installed alarm system which is turned off for the test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969134</id>
	<title>Re:Zero-day viruses aren't what they used to be...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1257246300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They weren't even zero-day viruses, they were trojans horse programs and the like (which they explicitly executed as a regular user).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were n't even zero-day viruses , they were trojans horse programs and the like ( which they explicitly executed as a regular user ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They weren't even zero-day viruses, they were trojans horse programs and the like (which they explicitly executed as a regular user).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969226</id>
	<title>Re:Firewall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sophos was testing Windows 7 in its default configuration.  I don't know if the Firewall is enabled on a default install, but I suspect it probably is based on the defaults in XP Service Pack 3.  If it's not, then the firewall is going to be irrelevant to a good number of users who are also likely to run Windows without AntiVirus on board.  If it is, then it's not providing any protection to speak of, apparently.</p><p>One of the tests failed, not because Windows provided protection, but because the virus itself wasn't Win32 code.  I'm sure the developers of Bredo-M are on it and will have a fix out soon.</p><p>Particularly disappointing in this test, however, was UAC's failure to protect against all but one of the eight buggers that did try to run in Windows 7.  That is/was supposed to be Microsoft's response to allowing most applications to run as Administrator rather than a limited user (thereby enabling or even encouraging the existence of a large base of applications that REQUIRE Administrator access).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sophos was testing Windows 7 in its default configuration .
I do n't know if the Firewall is enabled on a default install , but I suspect it probably is based on the defaults in XP Service Pack 3 .
If it 's not , then the firewall is going to be irrelevant to a good number of users who are also likely to run Windows without AntiVirus on board .
If it is , then it 's not providing any protection to speak of , apparently.One of the tests failed , not because Windows provided protection , but because the virus itself was n't Win32 code .
I 'm sure the developers of Bredo-M are on it and will have a fix out soon.Particularly disappointing in this test , however , was UAC 's failure to protect against all but one of the eight buggers that did try to run in Windows 7 .
That is/was supposed to be Microsoft 's response to allowing most applications to run as Administrator rather than a limited user ( thereby enabling or even encouraging the existence of a large base of applications that REQUIRE Administrator access ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sophos was testing Windows 7 in its default configuration.
I don't know if the Firewall is enabled on a default install, but I suspect it probably is based on the defaults in XP Service Pack 3.
If it's not, then the firewall is going to be irrelevant to a good number of users who are also likely to run Windows without AntiVirus on board.
If it is, then it's not providing any protection to speak of, apparently.One of the tests failed, not because Windows provided protection, but because the virus itself wasn't Win32 code.
I'm sure the developers of Bredo-M are on it and will have a fix out soon.Particularly disappointing in this test, however, was UAC's failure to protect against all but one of the eight buggers that did try to run in Windows 7.
That is/was supposed to be Microsoft's response to allowing most applications to run as Administrator rather than a limited user (thereby enabling or even encouraging the existence of a large base of applications that REQUIRE Administrator access).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969416</id>
	<title>Re:Firewall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From your questions it seems that you don't understand what the Windows firewall is.</p><p>Viruses need to reach a higher privilege level than the standard system administrator, not to hide there own files, nor to prevent being removed by a virus scanner, only to properly lock up the machine so it won't be overtaken by a competing virus. At that point disabling or working around the windows firewall is not even worth mentioning. Further, viruses can communicate using any protocol they like, and these days often use ports and protocols that are specifically let through by a default Windows firewall, like http, IRC, bitorrent, etc.</p><p>Most viruses infect a computer by exploiting a bug in a windows program, and then a bug in windows to reach the needed privilege level. The firewall can't see the difference between normal packets and packets that are exploiting some bug in the software. Even a real firewall, not running on the same machine, can not detect packets that are exploiting a bug in some software, and can not prevent a virus from communicating with the Internet (the Windows firewall doesn't even look at incoming packets anyway).</p><p>I'm afraid the only solution is to fix the bugs. A real firewall is just a very small extra hurdle, and the Windows firewall nothing more than slightly annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From your questions it seems that you do n't understand what the Windows firewall is.Viruses need to reach a higher privilege level than the standard system administrator , not to hide there own files , nor to prevent being removed by a virus scanner , only to properly lock up the machine so it wo n't be overtaken by a competing virus .
At that point disabling or working around the windows firewall is not even worth mentioning .
Further , viruses can communicate using any protocol they like , and these days often use ports and protocols that are specifically let through by a default Windows firewall , like http , IRC , bitorrent , etc.Most viruses infect a computer by exploiting a bug in a windows program , and then a bug in windows to reach the needed privilege level .
The firewall ca n't see the difference between normal packets and packets that are exploiting some bug in the software .
Even a real firewall , not running on the same machine , can not detect packets that are exploiting a bug in some software , and can not prevent a virus from communicating with the Internet ( the Windows firewall does n't even look at incoming packets anyway ) .I 'm afraid the only solution is to fix the bugs .
A real firewall is just a very small extra hurdle , and the Windows firewall nothing more than slightly annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From your questions it seems that you don't understand what the Windows firewall is.Viruses need to reach a higher privilege level than the standard system administrator, not to hide there own files, nor to prevent being removed by a virus scanner, only to properly lock up the machine so it won't be overtaken by a competing virus.
At that point disabling or working around the windows firewall is not even worth mentioning.
Further, viruses can communicate using any protocol they like, and these days often use ports and protocols that are specifically let through by a default Windows firewall, like http, IRC, bitorrent, etc.Most viruses infect a computer by exploiting a bug in a windows program, and then a bug in windows to reach the needed privilege level.
The firewall can't see the difference between normal packets and packets that are exploiting some bug in the software.
Even a real firewall, not running on the same machine, can not detect packets that are exploiting a bug in some software, and can not prevent a virus from communicating with the Internet (the Windows firewall doesn't even look at incoming packets anyway).I'm afraid the only solution is to fix the bugs.
A real firewall is just a very small extra hurdle, and the Windows firewall nothing more than slightly annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970180</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>kyc</author>
	<datestamp>1257249720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.</p></div><p>Oh I am sorry! It is completely MY fault! Next time I'll use Windows Ultra-Deluxe SpyWare Cleaner. Too bad it lets 9 out of 10, instead of all.</p><p>This pleasant but naive analogy doesn't work.<br>Because it is not the same thing. You are supposed to be protected after all that BS with UAC, Windows Defender, Active Defense, etc...</p><p>The real question is: Why would I have to put up with ridiculous functions like UAC and still have to pay for anti-virus software?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next you 'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive , syphilitic , sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.Oh I am sorry !
It is completely MY fault !
Next time I 'll use Windows Ultra-Deluxe SpyWare Cleaner .
Too bad it lets 9 out of 10 , instead of all.This pleasant but naive analogy does n't work.Because it is not the same thing .
You are supposed to be protected after all that BS with UAC , Windows Defender , Active Defense , etc...The real question is : Why would I have to put up with ridiculous functions like UAC and still have to pay for anti-virus software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.Oh I am sorry!
It is completely MY fault!
Next time I'll use Windows Ultra-Deluxe SpyWare Cleaner.
Too bad it lets 9 out of 10, instead of all.This pleasant but naive analogy doesn't work.Because it is not the same thing.
You are supposed to be protected after all that BS with UAC, Windows Defender, Active Defense, etc...The real question is: Why would I have to put up with ridiculous functions like UAC and still have to pay for anti-virus software?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.30109054</id>
	<title>No news found</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258280760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be clear:</p><p>Of the ten programs Sophos tested with, none were viruses. They were newly released malware, typically Trojan horses. The less to learn is that default User Account Control settings will not prevent the user from installing malware.</p><p>No one should be surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be clear : Of the ten programs Sophos tested with , none were viruses .
They were newly released malware , typically Trojan horses .
The less to learn is that default User Account Control settings will not prevent the user from installing malware.No one should be surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be clear:Of the ten programs Sophos tested with, none were viruses.
They were newly released malware, typically Trojan horses.
The less to learn is that default User Account Control settings will not prevent the user from installing malware.No one should be surprised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969042</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>jockeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257246000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yep.  i'm an MSDN subscriber, been running Windows 7 for a month or two now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yep .
i 'm an MSDN subscriber , been running Windows 7 for a month or two now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yep.
i'm an MSDN subscriber, been running Windows 7 for a month or two now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973680</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257270720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone and their mom was running the freely available beta long before it ever launched in October.</p><p>By the time it was publicly available, several people I knew (myself included) had been running it for weeks and weeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone and their mom was running the freely available beta long before it ever launched in October.By the time it was publicly available , several people I knew ( myself included ) had been running it for weeks and weeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone and their mom was running the freely available beta long before it ever launched in October.By the time it was publicly available, several people I knew (myself included) had been running it for weeks and weeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977824</id>
	<title>Re:NEWSFLASH!</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1257003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, as a matter of fact it is not.  5 years on a Mac with no AV and I've had no viruses or spyware.</p><p>News at 11!</p><p>You need to reshape your thinking and demand more from your OS provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , as a matter of fact it is not .
5 years on a Mac with no AV and I 've had no viruses or spyware.News at 11 ! You need to reshape your thinking and demand more from your OS provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, as a matter of fact it is not.
5 years on a Mac with no AV and I've had no viruses or spyware.News at 11!You need to reshape your thinking and demand more from your OS provider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972630</id>
	<title>7 or 8?</title>
	<author>zary</author>
	<datestamp>1257262080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, the article says 8 out of ten, and so does the summary title. The summary says that 7 out of 10 viruses ran. Last i checked, 7/10 != 8/10.
Oh wait, it's Windoze, it must depend on the square root of the number of minutes until the next hour.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the article says 8 out of ten , and so does the summary title .
The summary says that 7 out of 10 viruses ran .
Last i checked , 7/10 ! = 8/10 .
Oh wait , it 's Windoze , it must depend on the square root of the number of minutes until the next hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the article says 8 out of ten, and so does the summary title.
The summary says that 7 out of 10 viruses ran.
Last i checked, 7/10 != 8/10.
Oh wait, it's Windoze, it must depend on the square root of the number of minutes until the next hour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973718</id>
	<title>Re:High quality!</title>
	<author>nitro316</author>
	<datestamp>1257271020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>even if they did require the permission the average slack jawed yokel windows user will just click allow anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>even if they did require the permission the average slack jawed yokel windows user will just click allow anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even if they did require the permission the average slack jawed yokel windows user will just click allow anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975102</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256980740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>8 out of every 10 self respecing nerds atleast tried the beta. What rock did you crawl under?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8 out of every 10 self respecing nerds atleast tried the beta .
What rock did you crawl under ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8 out of every 10 self respecing nerds atleast tried the beta.
What rock did you crawl under?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969766</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1257248400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are Mac viruses, its just that they are a fraction of the danger of windows virus.Going mac/linux isn't a perfect solution, but it does help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are Mac viruses , its just that they are a fraction of the danger of windows virus.Going mac/linux is n't a perfect solution , but it does help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are Mac viruses, its just that they are a fraction of the danger of windows virus.Going mac/linux isn't a perfect solution, but it does help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969650</id>
	<title>Re:Why blacklist instead of whitelist?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1257248160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1: developers need to run the software they write.<br>2: there are more legitimate programs than viruses.<br>3: a virus could potentially infect a white-listed program, though it may be difficult if a hash or check-sum is used (collisions do exist).<br>4: who gets to define the white-list? what if MS only white-listed MS and MS affiliate software?</p><p>Seriously though, a properly designed OS can be made all but idiot proof without antivirus. Idiots will still download and run whatever they want. Even if you tell them OMGkittensScreenSaver.exe is a virus and provide ample proof, they will want it enough to ignore your warnings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : developers need to run the software they write.2 : there are more legitimate programs than viruses.3 : a virus could potentially infect a white-listed program , though it may be difficult if a hash or check-sum is used ( collisions do exist ) .4 : who gets to define the white-list ?
what if MS only white-listed MS and MS affiliate software ? Seriously though , a properly designed OS can be made all but idiot proof without antivirus .
Idiots will still download and run whatever they want .
Even if you tell them OMGkittensScreenSaver.exe is a virus and provide ample proof , they will want it enough to ignore your warnings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: developers need to run the software they write.2: there are more legitimate programs than viruses.3: a virus could potentially infect a white-listed program, though it may be difficult if a hash or check-sum is used (collisions do exist).4: who gets to define the white-list?
what if MS only white-listed MS and MS affiliate software?Seriously though, a properly designed OS can be made all but idiot proof without antivirus.
Idiots will still download and run whatever they want.
Even if you tell them OMGkittensScreenSaver.exe is a virus and provide ample proof, they will want it enough to ignore your warnings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987762</id>
	<title>Re:In Test, Kdawson Posted 10 out of 10 FUD Storie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256991420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my world FUD means Fully Un-Detected<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my world FUD means Fully Un-Detected : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my world FUD means Fully Un-Detected :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29978646</id>
	<title>Re:Firewall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  Which is why a desktop machine needs a decent firewall which will ask the user before giving a process/program access to the network or internet.</p><p>Zone Alarm does this on Windows and stops most Trojan/Worm efforts in their tracks (even my dumbest users know not to let "random\_crap.exe" go to the internet now).</p><p>Linux has nothing like this so is ripe for the taking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Which is why a desktop machine needs a decent firewall which will ask the user before giving a process/program access to the network or internet.Zone Alarm does this on Windows and stops most Trojan/Worm efforts in their tracks ( even my dumbest users know not to let " random \ _crap.exe " go to the internet now ) .Linux has nothing like this so is ripe for the taking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Which is why a desktop machine needs a decent firewall which will ask the user before giving a process/program access to the network or internet.Zone Alarm does this on Windows and stops most Trojan/Worm efforts in their tracks (even my dumbest users know not to let "random\_crap.exe" go to the internet now).Linux has nothing like this so is ripe for the taking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972006</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257257640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTM on MSDN-AA, for example?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTM on MSDN-AA , for example ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTM on MSDN-AA, for example?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969062</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1257246120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.</p></div><p>Not if they use a Mac, they can't get viruses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next you 'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive , syphilitic , sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.Not if they use a Mac , they ca n't get viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.Not if they use a Mac, they can't get viruses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970360</id>
	<title>Re:I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257250320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>wow you are a fucking moron</htmltext>
<tokenext>wow you are a fucking moron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow you are a fucking moron</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968674</id>
	<title>Nice weather we're having.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about stating the obvious!  MS themselves recommend running anti-virus on windows 7.  http://www.microsoft.com/windows/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about stating the obvious !
MS themselves recommend running anti-virus on windows 7. http : //www.microsoft.com/windows/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about stating the obvious!
MS themselves recommend running anti-virus on windows 7.  http://www.microsoft.com/windows/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972154</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous counting</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1257258720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Confused? The summary could not have been clearer: <b>Go and buy our product now or you are in grave danger.</b> Who needs more details than that?<br> <br>

*Pulls computer plug out of the socket and races to Best-buy to get Sophos Anti-virus.*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Confused ?
The summary could not have been clearer : Go and buy our product now or you are in grave danger .
Who needs more details than that ?
* Pulls computer plug out of the socket and races to Best-buy to get Sophos Anti-virus .
*</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Confused?
The summary could not have been clearer: Go and buy our product now or you are in grave danger.
Who needs more details than that?
*Pulls computer plug out of the socket and races to Best-buy to get Sophos Anti-virus.
*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330</id>
	<title>Why blacklist instead of whitelist?</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1257247020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a question.</p><p>I have read arguments that antivirus is essentially blacklisting, and that blacklisting makes no sense for security. If you run an exclusive club, you make a list of who IS allowed in. You don't try to list everyone in the world who ISN'T allowed in.</p><p>The argument say that the same should be true of programs - instead of trying to keep an up-to-the-second list of all 5 trillion viruses in the world, why not keep a list of the  50 programs that SHOULD be allowed to run, and assume that anything else is bad?</p><p>This makes logical sense to me, but (apparently) it isn't done. I assume it's much harder than it sounds. Can anyone explain this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a question.I have read arguments that antivirus is essentially blacklisting , and that blacklisting makes no sense for security .
If you run an exclusive club , you make a list of who IS allowed in .
You do n't try to list everyone in the world who IS N'T allowed in.The argument say that the same should be true of programs - instead of trying to keep an up-to-the-second list of all 5 trillion viruses in the world , why not keep a list of the 50 programs that SHOULD be allowed to run , and assume that anything else is bad ? This makes logical sense to me , but ( apparently ) it is n't done .
I assume it 's much harder than it sounds .
Can anyone explain this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a question.I have read arguments that antivirus is essentially blacklisting, and that blacklisting makes no sense for security.
If you run an exclusive club, you make a list of who IS allowed in.
You don't try to list everyone in the world who ISN'T allowed in.The argument say that the same should be true of programs - instead of trying to keep an up-to-the-second list of all 5 trillion viruses in the world, why not keep a list of the  50 programs that SHOULD be allowed to run, and assume that anything else is bad?This makes logical sense to me, but (apparently) it isn't done.
I assume it's much harder than it sounds.
Can anyone explain this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969152</id>
	<title>The newfie virus?</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1257246360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, running "sudo rm -rf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/" as may cause migraines in up to 90\% of linux administrators.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , running " sudo rm -rf / " as may cause migraines in up to 90 \ % of linux administrators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, running "sudo rm -rf /" as may cause migraines in up to 90\% of linux administrators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970724</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1257251580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?</i> </p><p>Net Applications and W3Schools have been tracking Win 7 since January:</p><p> <a href="http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=11" title="hitslink.com">Top Operating System Share Trend</a> [hitslink.com]. <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers\_os.asp" title="w3schools.com">OS Platform Statistics</a> [w3schools.com] </p><p>October</p><p>NA<br>Win7 2.15\%<br>Linux 0.96\%</p><p>W3S<br>Win7 4.4\%<br>Linux 4.2\%</p><p>In the W3Schools stats it took Linux six years to move from 2\% to 4\%. Win 7 three months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ?
Net Applications and W3Schools have been tracking Win 7 since January : Top Operating System Share Trend [ hitslink.com ] .
OS Platform Statistics [ w3schools.com ] OctoberNAWin7 2.15 \ % Linux 0.96 \ % W3SWin7 4.4 \ % Linux 4.2 \ % In the W3Schools stats it took Linux six years to move from 2 \ % to 4 \ % .
Win 7 three months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?
Net Applications and W3Schools have been tracking Win 7 since January: Top Operating System Share Trend [hitslink.com].
OS Platform Statistics [w3schools.com] OctoberNAWin7 2.15\%Linux 0.96\%W3SWin7 4.4\%Linux 4.2\%In the W3Schools stats it took Linux six years to move from 2\% to 4\%.
Win 7 three months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970900</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous counting</title>
	<author>zjbs14</author>
	<datestamp>1257252240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a kdawson summary.  What did you expect?  Accuracy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a kdawson summary .
What did you expect ?
Accuracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a kdawson summary.
What did you expect?
Accuracy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969830</id>
	<title>We're short on sarcastic anti-MS comments..so...</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1257248640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing only 8 out of 10 apps work too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing only 8 out of 10 apps work too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing only 8 out of 10 apps work too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973314</id>
	<title>Re:But UAC works perfectly fine at frustrating me!</title>
	<author>LinuxIsGarbage</author>
	<datestamp>1257267840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just recently had to edit the Host file. (Local DNS file).
Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.</p></div><p>You didn't <b>HAVE</b> to give up and disable UAC, you chose to.</p><p>Start notepad elevated:
start-"notepad" (in search box) Ctrl+shift+Enter (start elevated).
Respond to UAC prompt.</p><p>File-open-\%systemroot\%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts</p><p>Alternatively in an admin commandprompt:
notepad \%systemroot\%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts</p><p>Seriously. In Linux do you try editing a system configuration files without sticking a "su" in front of it?</p><p>Did you even try typing "Windows 7 hosts file" in Google?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just recently had to edit the Host file .
( Local DNS file ) .
Could not save it because of UAC , and did n't get a UAC prompt either , had to give up and disable UAC first.You did n't HAVE to give up and disable UAC , you chose to.Start notepad elevated : start- " notepad " ( in search box ) Ctrl + shift + Enter ( start elevated ) .
Respond to UAC prompt.File-open- \ % systemroot \ % \ system32 \ drivers \ etc \ hostsAlternatively in an admin commandprompt : notepad \ % systemroot \ % \ system32 \ drivers \ etc \ hostsSeriously .
In Linux do you try editing a system configuration files without sticking a " su " in front of it ? Did you even try typing " Windows 7 hosts file " in Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just recently had to edit the Host file.
(Local DNS file).
Could not save it because of UAC, and didn't get a UAC prompt either, had to give up and disable UAC first.You didn't HAVE to give up and disable UAC, you chose to.Start notepad elevated:
start-"notepad" (in search box) Ctrl+shift+Enter (start elevated).
Respond to UAC prompt.File-open-\%systemroot\%\system32\drivers\etc\hostsAlternatively in an admin commandprompt:
notepad \%systemroot\%\system32\drivers\etc\hostsSeriously.
In Linux do you try editing a system configuration files without sticking a "su" in front of it?Did you even try typing "Windows 7 hosts file" in Google?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968902</id>
	<title>3.9\%</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1257245460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3.9\%.</p><p>Three<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>nine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>percent.</p><p>That's almost thirty nine per thousand!!!!</p><p>Take that, linux!  Mwwwwahhahahahaha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3.9 \ % .Three ...point ...nine ...percent.That 's almost thirty nine per thousand ! ! !
! Take that , linux !
Mwwwwahhahahahaha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.9\%.Three ...point ...nine ...percent.That's almost thirty nine per thousand!!!
!Take that, linux!
Mwwwwahhahahahaha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969116</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting market share stat there</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1257246240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Windows 7's market share<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1.9\% the day before launch</p></div></blockquote><p>
Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share <b>before</b> launch?</p></div><p>Similar to how I was running Ubuntu 9.10 the week before it launched, nothing to see here, move along.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 's market share ... 1.9 \ % the day before launch Windows 7 had 1.9 \ % market share before launch ? Similar to how I was running Ubuntu 9.10 the week before it launched , nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7's market share ... 1.9\% the day before launch
Windows 7 had 1.9\% market share before launch?Similar to how I was running Ubuntu 9.10 the week before it launched, nothing to see here, move along.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975740</id>
	<title>Great! What the FUD?!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256986980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if i write 10 linsux viruses and run them on linsux box as root, 10 on 10 will infect the machine, isnt it ?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if i write 10 linsux viruses and run them on linsux box as root , 10 on 10 will infect the machine , isnt it ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if i write 10 linsux viruses and run them on linsux box as root, 10 on 10 will infect the machine, isnt it ?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29979372</id>
	<title>Learning is great, if you are willing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only power MS has, is that it fully supports the gaming industry. It also doesn't care to educate its users about proper computer security procedures. The governments of this world do NOT want you to use secure systems and encryption, since it requires more resources to eavesdrop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only power MS has , is that it fully supports the gaming industry .
It also does n't care to educate its users about proper computer security procedures .
The governments of this world do NOT want you to use secure systems and encryption , since it requires more resources to eavesdrop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only power MS has, is that it fully supports the gaming industry.
It also doesn't care to educate its users about proper computer security procedures.
The governments of this world do NOT want you to use secure systems and encryption, since it requires more resources to eavesdrop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977102</id>
	<title>Re:Is this really surprising?</title>
	<author>flappinbooger</author>
	<datestamp>1256999700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't recall MS ever saying win7 was immune to malware even when no anti-malware software was installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall MS ever saying win7 was immune to malware even when no anti-malware software was installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall MS ever saying win7 was immune to malware even when no anti-malware software was installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968712</id>
	<title>Zero-day viruses aren't what they used to be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The next 10 samples that came through the door". 8 out of 10 zero-day windows viruses infected an unprotected machine?

The most surprising thing to note out of this is that two of them failed right out of the box. The calibre of virus writers isn't what it used to be if they're not working on launch day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The next 10 samples that came through the door " .
8 out of 10 zero-day windows viruses infected an unprotected machine ?
The most surprising thing to note out of this is that two of them failed right out of the box .
The calibre of virus writers is n't what it used to be if they 're not working on launch day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The next 10 samples that came through the door".
8 out of 10 zero-day windows viruses infected an unprotected machine?
The most surprising thing to note out of this is that two of them failed right out of the box.
The calibre of virus writers isn't what it used to be if they're not working on launch day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29980870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29981438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.30001130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29985862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29989726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29981984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29992258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29983066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29986382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29978094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29978646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.30016362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29982470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2123258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29980478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969766
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29980870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29992258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29980478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29986382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29989726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29981438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29981984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29982470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29976744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29978094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29983066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.30016362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29987906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29971560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29977824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29973874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2123258.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29968776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.30001130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29969226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29970540
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29978646
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29985862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29972870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29974660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2123258.29975702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
